1: \documentstyle[emulateapj,psfig]{article}
2:
3: \makeatletter
4: \newenvironment{inlinetable}{%
5: \def\@captype{table}%
6: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}\footnotesize}
7: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
8:
9: \newenvironment{inlinefigure}{%
10: \def\@captype{figure}%
11: \noindent\begin{minipage}{0.999\linewidth}\begin{center}}
12: {\end{center}\end{minipage}\smallskip}
13: \makeatother
14:
15: \lefthead{Cowie \& Barger}
16:
17: \newcommand{\ha}{H$\alpha$}
18: \newcommand{\hb}{H$\beta$}
19: \newcommand{\neiii}{[Ne$\thinspace{\rm III}]$}
20: \newcommand{\nii}{[N$\thinspace{\rm II}]$}
21: \newcommand{\oii}{[O$\thinspace{\rm II}]$}
22: \newcommand{\oiii}{[O$\thinspace{\rm III}]$}
23: \newcommand{\sii}{[S$\thinspace{\rm II}]$}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26:
27: \slugcomment{Accepted to The Astrophysical Journal}
28:
29: \title{An Integrated Picture of Star Formation, Metallicity Evolution,
30: and Galactic Stellar Mass Assembly\altaffilmark{1}}
31: \author{
32: L.~L.~Cowie$\!$\altaffilmark{2},
33: A.~J.~Barger$\!$\altaffilmark{3,4,2}
34: }
35:
36: \altaffiltext{1}{Based in part on data obtained at the W.~M.~Keck
37: Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership among
38: the California Institute of Technology, the University of
39: California, and NASA and was made possible by the generous financial
40: support of the W.~M.~Keck Foundation.}
41: \altaffiltext{2}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii,
42: 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822.}
43: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of
44: Wisconsin-Madison, 475 North Charter Street, Madison, WI 53706.}
45: \altaffiltext{4}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
46: University of Hawaii, 2505 Correa Road, Honolulu, HI 96822.}
47:
48:
49: \begin{abstract}
50: We present an integrated study of star formation and
51: galactic stellar mass assembly from $z=0.05-1.5$ and galactic
52: metallicity evolution from $z=0.05-0.9$ using a very large and
53: highly spectroscopically complete sample selected by
54: rest-frame NIR bolometric flux.
55: Our NIR (rest-frame $0.8-2.4~\mu$m)
56: sample consists of 2634 galaxies with fluxes in excess of
57: $2\times 10^{-15}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ in the GOODS-N field.
58: It probes to a complete mass limit of $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
59: for $z=0.05-0.9$ and includes all Milky Way mass
60: galaxies for $z=0.05-1.5$. We have spectroscopic
61: redshifts and high-quality spectra from $4500-10000$~\AA\ for
62: 2020 (77\%) of the galaxies. Our 13-band photometric
63: redshift estimates show that most of the spectroscopically
64: unidentified sources in the above redshift ranges are
65: early-type galaxies. We assume a Salpeter IMF and fit
66: Bruzual \& Charlot (2003) models to the data to compute the
67: galactic stellar masses and extinctions.
68: We calibrate the star formation diagnostics internally using
69: our $z=0.05-0.475$ sample.
70: We then derive the galactic stellar mass assembly and star
71: formation histories. We compare our extinction
72: corrected UV-based star formation rate densities with the
73: combination of the star formation rate densities that we
74: compute from the 24~$\mu$m fluxes and the extinction uncorrected
75: \oii\ luminosities. We determine the expected
76: formed stellar mass density growth rates produced by star formation
77: and compare them with the growth rates measured from the
78: formed stellar mass functions by mass interval.
79: We show that the growth rates match
80: if the IMF is slightly increased from the Salpeter IMF at intermediate
81: masses ($\sim 10$~M$_\odot$). We investigate the evolution of galaxy
82: color, spectral type, and morphology with mass and redshift and the
83: evolution of mass with environment. We find that applying extinction
84: corrections is critical when analyzing the galaxy colors. As an
85: example, prior to correcting for extinction, nearly all
86: of the galaxies in the green valley are 24~$\mu$m sources, but
87: after correcting for extinction, the bulk of the 24~$\mu$m sources
88: lie in the blue cloud.
89: We also compute the metallicities of the sources
90: between $z=0.05-0.9$ that have well-detected \hb, \oii~$\lambda3727$,
91: and \oiii~$\lambda5007$ emission lines using the R23 diagnostic ratio.
92: At $z<0.475$ we use the R23, \nii/\oii, and \nii/\ha\ diagnostic ratios.
93: We find an evolution of the metallicity-mass relation
94: corresponding to a decrease of $0.21\pm0.03$~dex between the
95: local value and the value at $z=0.77$ in the $10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$
96: range. We use the metallicity evolution to estimate the gas mass
97: of the galaxies, which we compare with the galactic stellar mass
98: assembly and star formation histories.
99: Overall, our measurements are consistent with a galaxy evolution
100: process dominated by episodic bursts of star formation
101: and where star formation in the most massive galaxies
102: ($\gtrsim 10^{11}$~M$_\odot$) ceases at $z<1.5$ because of gas starvation.
103: \end{abstract}
104:
105: \keywords{cosmology: observations --- galaxies: distances and
106: redshifts --- galaxies: active --- X-rays: galaxies ---
107: galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution}
108:
109:
110: \section{Introduction}
111: \label{secintro}
112:
113: One of the fundamental goals of modern cosmology is
114: to understand the formation and evolution of the
115: galaxy population as a whole. We shall refer to
116: this as the cosmic galaxy formation problem. There has
117: been spectacular progress in addressing
118: the cosmic galaxy formation problem over the last
119: twenty years, beginning with the determination of the
120: star formation history (e.g., Cowie et al.\ 1995; Lilly et
121: al.\ 1996; Madau et al.\ 1996; Steidel et al.\ 1999;
122: Haarsma et al.\ 2000; Barger et al.\ 2000; Le Floc'h et al.\ 2005;
123: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez et al.\ 2005;
124: Hopkins \& Beacom 2006; Wang et al.\ 2006; Reddy et al.\ 2008).
125: This has been followed more recently by efforts to measure the
126: galactic stellar mass assembly history
127: (e.g., Brinchmann \& Ellis 2000;
128: Cole et al.\ 2001; Bell et al.\ 2003, 2007;
129: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez et al.\ 2003, 2008;
130: Dickinson et al.\ 2003; Rudnick et al.\ 2003, 2006;
131: Fontana et al.\ 2003, 2004, 2006; Drory et al.\ 2004, 2005;
132: Bundy et al.\ 2005, 2006; Conselice et al.\ 2005, 2007;
133: Borch et al.\ 2006; Pannella et al.\ 2006; Elsner et al.\ 2008)
134: and the evolution of metallicity with galaxy
135: mass and redshift (e.g., Kobulnicky et al.\ 2003; Lilly et al.\ 2003;
136: Kobulnicky \& Kewley 2004; Tremonti et al.\ 2004;
137: Liang et al.\ 2004; Savaglio et al.\ 2005).
138: However, ideally what one wants is a
139: comprehensive analysis of the history of star formation, the
140: growth of galactic stellar mass and metals content,
141: and the changes in morphology with redshift, galaxy mass,
142: and the environment for a large, mass-selected galaxy
143: sample that could be compared in detail with local galaxy properties
144: and cosmological simulations of galaxy evolution.
145: In particular, such an analysis could yield clear explanations
146: for the migration of star formation to lower mass
147: galaxies at later cosmic times and the simultaneous
148: quenching of star formation
149: in the most massive galaxies (the downsizing of Cowie et al.\ 1996),
150: as well as for the color bimodality of galaxy populations
151: (e.g., Strateva et al.\ 2001; Baldry et al.\ 2004).
152:
153: Up until now such an analysis has not been possible
154: since existing data sets are either visually selected,
155: have limited color information, and are poorly
156: suited to a metals analysis because of the spectroscopic
157: wavelength coverage (e.g., the DEEP2 survey); mass selected
158: but based on photometric redshifts (e.g., Combo17/GEMS);
159: or mass selected and spectroscopically observed but based
160: on a relatively small sample (e.g., the Gemini Deep Deep Survey).
161:
162: In this paper we present, for the first time, an integrated,
163: mass-based analysis made possible by the availability of a large,
164: homogeneous, near-infrared (NIR) selected and spectroscopically
165: observed galaxy sample in the Great Observatories Origins Deep
166: Survey-North (GOODS-N; Giavalisco et al.\ 2004) field.
167: We have obtained extremely deep, wide-field NIR images
168: (Keenan et al.\ 2008, in preparation) and highly complete
169: spectroscopic identifications of the sources in this field
170: (Barger et al.\ 2008, in preparation). We are therefore able
171: to use, for the most part, spectroscopic redshifts to make our
172: determinations of the galactic stellar mass assembly
173: and star formation histories, as well as high-quality measurements
174: of line fluxes to obtain the metallicity history.
175:
176: However, we caution that even with such an excellent data set
177: there are many complicating factors in relating the star formation
178: history to the stellar mass assembly history and the formation of
179: metals in galaxies, even at late cosmic times.
180: (Here we shall take late cosmic times to be $z<1.5$.)
181: At the conceptual level, methods of measuring
182: star formation rates use diagnostics which are sensitive to the
183: high-mass end of the stellar initial mass function (IMF), while
184: stellar mass measurements are dominated by lower mass
185: stars. Therefore, while the shape of the sub-solar IMF only enters
186: as a normalization factor, the shape of the IMF at higher
187: masses is critical in relating the star formation rates to the
188: stellar masses. Thus, we must be concerned about the uncertainties
189: in the IMF shape and the potential variations in the
190: IMF shape between different types of galaxies. In principle
191: we could minimize this problem by considering the growth of
192: the stellar mass in metals rather than the growth of the total
193: stellar mass, since the metals are produced by the same
194: high-mass stars that are measured by the star formation
195: diagnostics (Cowie 1988). However, even this is subject to
196: uncertainties in the yields and would require the measurement
197: of not only the total stellar mass evolution but also
198: the metals evolution in both stars and gas, which would be very
199: challenging to do.
200:
201: Measurements of the star formation rates, stellar masses,
202: and metals are also complicated by other factors.
203: Extinction reradiates
204: light from the rest-frame UV to the far-infrared (FIR), and we
205: must determine total star formation rates over a wide range
206: of galaxies with radically different morphologies and
207: dust column densities. Conversions even of NIR
208: light to stellar mass are complicated by ongoing
209: active star formation, and there are still major
210: uncertainties in the stellar modeling of the galaxy populations.
211: Finally, determinations of the metals throughout the redshift
212: range of interest can only be made for the gaseous baryons in
213: the star-forming galaxies and depend on the notoriously uncertain
214: conversions of the strong oxygen and nitrogen emission lines
215: to metallicities.
216:
217: Cosmic variance is also a significant issue in a field size
218: as small as the GOODS-N (e.g. Somerville et al. 2004) and
219: can affect our analysis of the evolution of quantities
220: such as the galaxy mass density and the universal star
221: formation rates.
222:
223: These problems must be borne in mind throughout any work of
224: the present type, and we attempt at all points to work forward
225: as self-consistently as possible from the raw information
226: (NIR luminosities, galaxy line strengths, raw star formation
227: diagnostics, etc.) to inferences about the evolution of derived
228: quantities, such as stellar masses, star formation rates,
229: and metallicities. Also, wherever possible, we have used
230: multiple independent methods to determine
231: the sensitivity of the derived quantities to our underlying assumptions.
232: We attempt to self consistently estimate the effects of cosmic
233: variance within the data set and also to estimate the effects
234: which analytic error estimates of the variance could introduce
235: in our analysis. Finally we compare our results throughout
236: to other recent work using different, and in some cases
237: much larger, fields to check for consistency in these portions
238: of the paper.
239:
240: The outline of the paper is as follows. In \S\ref{secsample}
241: and \S\ref{seclum} we describe the basic data and the sample
242: selections. In \S\ref{secfit} we fit Bruzual \& Charlot (2003)
243: models to the data to determine galactic stellar masses
244: and extinctions in the galaxies. In \S\ref{secspectral} we
245: measure equivalent widths and line fluxes from the
246: spectra. In \S\ref{secrelext} we compare measurements of the
247: continuum and line extinctions.
248: In \S\ref{secsfr} we derive self-consistent calibrations
249: of the various star formation rate diagnostics.
250: In \S\ref{secha} and \S\ref{seco3} we derive the metallicities
251: with mass and redshift using various metallicity diagnostics.
252: In \S\ref{secabs} we consider the galaxies missing from the
253: metals analysis.
254: This is a long paper, and some readers may wish to skip much
255: of the detail and move to the discussion (\S\ref{secdisc})
256: and summary (\S\ref{seccon}), which we have tried to
257: make separately readable and which contain the high-level
258: interpretation of the data, including the
259: derivation of the
260: stellar mass assembly history with redshift, the evolution of the
261: mass-metallicity and mass-morphology relations with
262: redshift and environment, and the use of the metals evolution
263: to derive an estimate of the baryonic gas mass reservoir
264: in the galaxies. We find that all of our measurements
265: provide a broad, self-consistent picture of a galaxy
266: evolution process dominated by episodic bursts of star formation
267: and where star formation in the most massive galaxies
268: is terminated at later cosmic times as a consequence of
269: gas starvation.
270:
271: We adopt the $-1.35$ power-law Salpeter IMF
272: (Salpeter 1955) extending from 0.1 to 100~M$_\odot$
273: for ease of comparison with previous results. Most importantly,
274: this allows us to compare directly with the local mass function
275: computed by Cole et al.\ (2001; hereafter, Cole01) for this IMF.
276: The Salpeter IMF only differs significantly from the current
277: best IMFs (Kroupa 2001; Chabrier 2003) below 1~M$_\odot$,
278: and thus these three IMFs differ only in the normalization of the
279: galactic stellar mass and star formation rate determinations.
280: We can convert the total mass formed into stars prior to stellar
281: mass loss (which we will refer to as the formed stellar mass to
282: distinguish it from the present stellar mass, which is the stellar
283: mass present at any given time) from the Salpeter
284: IMF to the Chabrier IMF by dividing by 1.39 and to the Kroupa IMF
285: by dividing by 1.31. The exact conversion when considering the
286: present stellar masses rather than the formed stellar masses
287: depends on the average evolutionary stage of the
288: galaxies. However, this dependence is relatively weak, and we may
289: approximately convert the present stellar mass from the Salpeter IMF
290: to the Chabrier IMF by dividing by 1.70 and to the Kroupa IMF
291: by dividing by 1.54. Note that these latter conversion factors
292: have been computed for the distribution of ages in our ensemble
293: of galaxies. The present stellar mass for the Salpeter IMF is
294: roughly 0.74 of the formed stellar mass.
295:
296: We assume $\Omega_M=0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$, and
297: $H_0=70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$ throughout.
298: All magnitudes are given in the AB magnitude system,
299: where an AB magnitude is defined by
300: $m_{AB}=-2.5\log f_\nu - 48.60$.
301: Here $f_\nu$ is the flux of the source in units of
302: ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$.
303: We assume a reference value of the solar
304: metallicity of $12+\log({\rm O/H})=8.66$ and a conversion to the
305: mass fraction of metals of $Z=0.0126$ (Asplund et al.\ 2004).
306: This conversion is weakly dependent on the
307: assumed chemical composition relative to the oxygen abundance.
308:
309:
310: % generated with acs_nirbol_sample.pro
311: %
312: % FIGURE 1
313: %
314: \begin{inlinefigure}
315: \figurenum{1}
316: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f1.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
317: \vskip -0.2cm
318: \figcaption[]{
319: The observed area in the GOODS-N. The area is centered
320: on RA(2000) and Dec(2000) coordinates (189.2282, 62.2375)
321: with corners at (189.5435, 62.2749), (188.9137, 62.2000),
322: (189.3090, 62.3824), and (189.1482, 62.0909).
323: The covered area is 145~arcmin$^2$ ($9\farcm3$ by $15\farcm7$).
324: The NIR-selected sample is shown with black dots,
325: the 663 24~$\mu$m detected sources with red squares,
326: the 229 X-ray detected sources with blue diamonds, and
327: the 97 20~cm detected sources with green open triangles.
328: The concentration of the X-ray sources to the field
329: center reflects the variation in the sensitivity of
330: the X-ray image over the field.
331: \label{acs_nirbol_sample}
332: }
333: \end{inlinefigure}
334:
335:
336: \section{The NIR Bolometric Flux Sample}
337: \label{secsample}
338:
339: \subsection{Photometric Selection}
340: \label{photsample}
341:
342: The GOODS-N field is one of the most intensively studied
343: regions in the sky, and in many bandpasses it has the
344: deepest images ever obtained. Thus, it is nearly ideal for
345: the present study. In this paper we use photometric
346: data taken from existing work. The optical magnitudes are
347: from the Subaru 8.2~m SuprimeCam observations of
348: Capak et al.\ (2004; $U, B, V, R, I, z'$)
349: and from the {\em HST\/} Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)
350: observations of Giavalisco et al.\ (2004;
351: F435W, F606W, F775W, and F850LP).
352: The NIR magnitudes are from the University of Hawaii
353: 2.2~m ULBCAM ($J, H$) and CFHT WIRCAM and Subaru 8.2~m MOIRCS
354: ($K_s$) observations of Keenan et al.\ (2008, in preparation).
355: To properly match to the optical data,
356: the $3.6, 4.5, 5.8$, and $8.0~\mu$m magnitudes were measured
357: directly from the IRAC images that Wang et al.\ (2006)
358: produced. Weighting by exposure time, Wang et al.\ (2006)
359: combined the reduced DR1 and DR2 IRAC superdeep
360: images from the {\em Spitzer\/} Legacy first, interim, and
361: second data release products (DR1, DR1+, DR2; Dickinson
362: et al.\ 2008, in preparation).
363: In all cases, only sources within the well-covered ACS
364: GOODS-N region were included, as summarized in
365: Figure~\ref{acs_nirbol_sample}.
366: The covered area is 145~arcmin$^2$.
367:
368: For all of the sources we used corrected aperture magnitudes
369: to compute the colors and spectral energy distributions (SEDs).
370: We used $3''$ diameter apertures for the optical and
371: NIR data and $6''$ diameter apertures for the MIR data.
372: We computed the median of the difference between these magnitudes
373: and aperture magnitudes computed in $6''$ diameter apertures
374: for the the optical and $12''$ diameter apertures for the MIR data
375: and used this median to correct the smaller aperture magnitude
376: to an approximate total magnitude.
377: For the brighter extended sources we also computed
378: isophotal magnitudes integrated to 0.01\% of
379: the peak surface brightness and used the difference
380: between these and the corrected aperture magnitudes
381: in the $K_s$ band to correct the luminosities and masses.
382: All of the calibrations are independent, so
383: it is important to check that we have fully consistent
384: magnitudes. We will return to this point in \S\ref{secew}.
385:
386: We computed a rest-frame NIR bolometric flux for all of
387: the sources in the region which were significantly detected at any
388: of the observed wavelength bands by linearly interpolating the observed
389: mangitudes to form a rest frame SED.
390: We used spectroscopic redshifts,
391: where these were known, or otherwise photometric
392: redshifts, which we calculated as in Wang et al.\ (2006)
393: using the template method developed by
394: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez et al.\ (2005).
395: We computed the flux over the {\em rest-frame}
396: wavelength range 8000~\AA\ to $2.4~\mu$m. We excluded
397: from the sample the spectroscopically
398: identified stars and all of the sources within $3''$
399: of a brighter object or within $12''$ of the
400: eleven brightest stars, leaving a final sample of 2634
401: galaxies with fluxes above
402: $2\times10^{-15}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$.
403: We take this as our primary NIR sample.
404: Our exclusion of neighbor sources introduces a
405: small, flux-dependent correction to the area, which
406: we allow for in our determinations of the mass
407: functions, but the correction never
408: exceeds 10\%, even at the faintest fluxes.
409:
410: Our selection by rest frame NIR bolometric flux is compared with the
411: more usual selection by observed NIR magnitude ($K_{s, {\rm AB}}$)
412: in Figure~\ref{nirbol_k} for sources with $z=0.05-1.5$.
413: The best-fit relation gives
414: %
415: \begin{equation}
416: K_{s, {\rm AB}} = -11.87 -2.40\log({\rm NIR~ flux}) \,,
417: \label{eqnnirkrel}
418: \end{equation}
419: %
420: and the limiting NIR flux corresponds roughly to
421: $K_{s, {\rm AB}} = 23.4$. This is a shallow sample
422: compared to the depth of the NIR images. For
423: the $K_s$ image it corresponds to an $18\sigma$
424: selection. Thus, there should be no significant
425: selection biases.
426:
427:
428: % generated with nirbol_k.pro
429: %
430: % FIGURE 2
431: %
432: \begin{inlinefigure}
433: \figurenum{2}
434: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f2.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
435: \vskip -0.2cm
436: \figcaption[]{
437: Comparison of the rest-frame NIR bolometric flux
438: with the observed $K_s$ magnitude for sources with
439: $z=0.05-1.5$. The red diagonal line shows
440: the least-square polynomial fit of $\log$(NIR flux) to
441: $K_s$ magnitude. The blue dashed horizontal line shows
442: the $5\sigma$ flux limit of $24.8$ for the $K_s$ sample.
443: \label{nirbol_k}
444: }
445: \end{inlinefigure}
446:
447:
448: We identified X-ray counterparts to the NIR sample by
449: matching our sample to the sources detected in the
450: Alexander et al.\ (2003) catalog of the 2~Ms {\em Chandra\/}
451: Deep Field-North (CDF-N)
452: using a $2''$ search radius. Near the aim point the
453: CDF-N X-ray data reach limiting fluxes of
454: $\approx 1.5\times 10^{-17}$ ($0.5-2$~keV)
455: and $\approx 1.4\times 10^{-16}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$ ($2-8$~keV).
456: We similarly obtained the radio fluxes from the Richards (2000)
457: 1.4~GHz catalog, which reaches a $5\sigma$ limiting flux of
458: $40~\mu$Jy and
459: the $24~\mu$m fluxes are from the DR1+ MIPS $24~\mu$m
460: source list and version 0.36 MIPS $24~\mu$m map provided
461: by the {\em Spitzer\/} Legacy Program. This source catalog
462: is flux-limited at $80~\mu$Jy and is a subset of a more
463: extensive catalog (R.~R.~Chary et al.\ 2007, in preparation).
464:
465: Our NIR-selected sample, together with the X-ray, 20~cm,
466: and $24~\mu$m detected sources, are shown in
467: Figure~\ref{acs_nirbol_sample}.
468:
469:
470: \subsection{Spectroscopy}
471: \label{secspec}
472:
473: Following the establishment of the Hubble Deep Field-North
474: (HDF-N) with {\em HST\/},
475: intensive spectroscopic observations of the region
476: were made by a number of groups, primarily using the
477: Low-Resolution Imaging Spectrograph (LRIS; Oke et al.\ 1995)
478: on the Keck~I 10~m telescope (these data are summarized in
479: Cohen et al.\ 2000). After the more extended GOODS-N region
480: was observed with the ACS camera, a number of groups began
481: intensive spectroscopic observations with the large-format
482: Deep Extragalactic Imaging Multi-Object Spectrograph
483: (DEIMOS; Faber et al.\ 2003) on the Keck~II 10~m telescope.
484: Wirth et al.\ (2004; Keck Team Redshift Survey or KTRS)
485: and Cowie et al.\ (2004) presented
486: large samples of magnitude-selected redshifts,
487: while Reddy et al.\ (2006) gave a substantial sample of
488: $z=2-3$ color-selected redshifts, Chapman et al.\ (2004, 2005)
489: and Swinbank et al.\ (2004) presented a number of
490: radio/submillimeter redshifts, Treu et al. (2005)
491: measured redshifts for a sample of spheroids,
492: and Barger et al.\ (2005, 2007)
493: carried out observations on the X-ray and
494: 1.4~GHz samples.
495:
496: We have attempted to make the most complete and homogeneous
497: spectral database possible by observing all of the missing or
498: unidentified galaxies in a variety of flux-limited samples.
499: A more extensive description of these samples may be found in
500: Barger et al.\ (2007, in preparation).
501: In this paper we focus only on the spectroscopic observations of
502: our NIR sample. Our observations were made in a number of DEIMOS
503: runs between 2004 and 2007. We used the 600 lines per mm grating,
504: giving a resolution of $3.5$~\AA\ and a wavelength coverage of
505: $5300$~\AA, which was the configuration used in the KTRS and
506: in the Cowie et al.\ (2004)
507: observations. The spectra were centered at an average wavelength
508: of $7200$~\AA, though the exact wavelength range for each
509: spectrum depends on the slit position. Each $\sim 1$~hr exposure
510: was broken into three subsets, with the objects stepped along
511: the slit by $1.5''$ in each direction. Unidentified objects
512: were continuously reobserved, giving maximum exposure times of
513: up to 7~hrs. The spectra were reduced in the same way as
514: previous LRIS spectra (Cowie et al.\ 1996). The dithering
515: procedure provides extremely high-precision sky subtraction,
516: which is important if we wish to measure accurate equivalent
517: widths, as in the present paper. We have only included
518: spectra in the sample that could be confidently identified
519: based on multiple emission and/or absorption lines.
520:
521: We also reobserved objects where the original spectra
522: were of poor quality or where previous redshifts were obtained
523: with instruments other than DEIMOS, as well as where
524: the existing redshift identifications were unconvincing
525: or where there were conflicting redshifts in the literature
526: (a small number of sources).
527: Many of the KTRS spectra have poor sky subtraction. While
528: these spectra are adequate for redshift identifications,
529: they are not suitable for line measurements because of the residual
530: sky lines. For the fainter objects the absolute sky subtraction
531: is often problematic and, in some cases, the spectra even
532: have negative continua. Equivalent width measurements made on
533: such spectra have very large systematic uncertainties. This
534: is a substantial problem for previous work
535: (e.g., Kobulnicky \& Kewley 2004) that relied on the KTRS
536: spectra. We have reobserved most of these sources.
537:
538: We now have spectroscopic redshift identifications for 2020
539: of the 2634 galaxies (77\%) in our NIR sample.
540: We show the redshift distribution
541: for the spectroscopically identified sample in Figure~\ref{zdist}
542: {\em (black histogram)\/}. The photometric redshift analysis of
543: the remaining sources {\em (red histogram)\/} implies that
544: most of these sources lie outside of our redshift ranges of
545: interest ($z=0.05-0.9$ for our metallicity analysis and $z=0.05-1.5$
546: for our mass assembly and star formation analyses) and hence
547: that the spectroscopic completeness inside our two redshift
548: ranges of interest is extremely high.
549:
550: We assigned photometric redshifts to all but 14 of the sources
551: in our sample. These 14 sources are either extremely faint
552: or have peculiar SEDs that could not be adequately fitted by
553: the templates. We shall assume that these lie outside of our
554: redshift ranges of interest. Between $z=0$ and $z=0.9$ there
555: are 1260 spectroscopically identified sources, and between
556: $z=0$ and $z=1.5$ there are 1884 spectroscopically identified
557: sources. Photometric redshifts add a further 126 sources
558: to $z=0.05-0.9$ and a further 229 sources to $z=0.9-1.5$.
559: Based on the SEDs of the sources with only photometric
560: redshifts in these ranges, many are red galaxies,
561: which are more difficult to identify spectroscopically.
562: Of the bluer sources, some may have
563: photometric redshifts that have scattered into these redshift
564: ranges, even though their true redshifts are higher.
565: Of the 126 galaxies with only photometric redshifts in the
566: redshift range $z=0.05-0.9$, 87 have been spectroscopically
567: observed and none of these have strong emission lines. Emission
568: lines, if present, would have easily been observed in this
569: redshift range.
570:
571:
572: % generated with nirlum_redshift_dist.pro
573: %
574: % FIGURE 3
575: %
576: \begin{inlinefigure}
577: \figurenum{3}
578: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f3.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
579: \vskip -0.2cm
580: \figcaption[]{
581: Redshift distribution of our full NIR sample.
582: Black (red) histogram shows spectroscopic
583: (photometric) redshifts. The redshift bin size is 0.01.
584: \label{zdist}
585: }
586: \end{inlinefigure}
587:
588:
589: We conclude that the spectroscopic sample contains nearly
590: all of the sources (1260 out of a maximum of 1386, or $>91$\%)
591: lying in the redshift range $z=0.05-0.9$ and essentially all
592: of the sources with strong emission lines suitable
593: for measuring emission line metallicities in this redshift
594: range. Over the $z=0.05-1.5$ interval the spectroscopically
595: identified sample contains $>84$\% of the galaxies
596: (1884 out of a maximum of 2239).
597:
598:
599: \subsection{Galaxy Morphologies}
600: \label{secmorph}
601:
602: The galaxy morphological types are taken from Bundy et al.\ (2005)
603: wherever possible. The Bundy et al. catalog is based on
604: Richard Ellis's visual classification of the sources in the GOODS-N
605: according to the following scale: $-2=$~Star, $-1=$~Compact,
606: $0=$~E, $1=$~E/S0, $2=$~S0, $3=$~Sab, $4=$~S, $5=$~Scd, $6=$~Irr,
607: $7=$~Unclass, $8=$~Merger, and $9=$~Fault.
608: For galaxies in our sample which were not included in the
609: Bundy et al.\ (2005) catalog, we visually classified the sources
610: using the {\em HST\/} F850LP images, aiming to reproduce the
611: Ellis classifications as closely as possible.
612:
613:
614: \subsection{Galaxy Environments}
615: \label{secgalenv}
616:
617: The local galaxy density can be computed using the
618: distance to the $n$th nearest neighbor (Dressler 1980).
619: In the present work we use the velocity information
620: only to separate slices; otherwise we use the projected
621: distance $d_n$. The surface density is then given by
622: $\Sigma=n/(\pi d_n^2)$. An extensive comparison of this
623: measure of the density environment with other methods is
624: given in Cooper et al.\ (2005), who conclude that the
625: projected distance method is generally the most robust for this
626: type of work.
627:
628: Edge effects are important in small field areas, such as the
629: GOODS-N region, and can bias the density parameter in low density
630: regions where the projected separation extends beyond the edge of
631: the field. We correct for this effect by including only that part
632: of the area $\pi d_n^2$ which lies within the field
633: (e.g., Baldry et al.\ 2006). To further reduce the edge effects,
634: we use a low $n$ to minimize the projected distance
635: and also exclude regions of the field that, at the redshift
636: of the galaxy, lie too close to the edge of the field for an
637: accurate measurement.
638:
639: Thus, for each galaxy we computed the projected density based
640: on the 3rd nearest neighbor having a mass above a uniform
641: mass cut and lying within 1000~km~s$^{-1}$ of the galaxy.
642: We exclude galaxies which lie closer than 1~Mpc from the
643: sample edge. This constraint restricts to galaxies
644: with $z\gtrsim 0.3$, since all of the lower redshift galaxies
645: will lie too close to the edges of the field.
646:
647:
648: \section{Four Uniform NIR Luminosity Samples}
649: \label{seclum}
650:
651:
652: % generated with nirlum_z.pro and nirlum_photz.pro
653: %
654: % FIGURE 4
655: %
656: \begin{inlinefigure}
657: \figurenum{4}
658: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f4a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
659: \vskip -0.6cm
660: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f4b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
661: \vskip -0.2cm
662: \figcaption[]{
663: (a) NIR luminosity vs. spectroscopic redshift for the
664: spectroscopically identified sources in the NIR sample, and
665: (b) NIR luminosity vs. photometric redshift for the
666: spectroscopically unidentified sources in the NIR sample.
667: The blue solid squares show sources with blue spectra, where
668: massive stars may still make a substantial contribution to
669: the NIR luminosity. The red open diamonds show sources
670: containing AGNs based on their X-ray luminosities. The red
671: solid curve shows the luminosity corresponding to the
672: limiting NIR flux of $2\times10^{-15}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$.
673: The red (black) dashed lines mark the region that corresponds
674: to the mid-$z$ (low-$z$) uniform NIR luminosity sample, where
675: the \oiii~$\lambda5007$ (\ha) line would be in the spectrum.
676: \label{nirlum}
677: }
678: \end{inlinefigure}
679:
680:
681: In Figure~\ref{nirlum}a (\ref{nirlum}b) we show NIR
682: luminosity versus spectroscopic (photometric) redshift for
683: the spectroscopically identified (unidentified) NIR sample.
684: We denote sources with blue spectra,
685: where massive stars may still make a substantial
686: contribution to the NIR luminosity, by blue solid squares.
687: We denote sources that contain AGNs (based on whether
688: either their $2-8$~keV or $0.5-2$~keV luminosities
689: are $>10^{42}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$) by red open diamonds.
690: We show the luminosity corresponding to the limiting NIR
691: flux of $2\times10^{-15}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$
692: by the solid red curve.
693:
694:
695: % generated with nirlum_sample_o3.pro and nirlum_sample_ha.pro
696: %
697: % FIGURE 5
698: %
699: \begin{inlinefigure}
700: \figurenum{5}
701: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f5a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
702: \vskip -0.6cm
703: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f5b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
704: \vskip -0.2cm
705: \figcaption[]{
706: NIR luminosity vs. redshift for the spectroscopically
707: identified sources in the (a) mid-$z$ sample and (b) low-$z$
708: sample. The sources with emission (absorption) line redshifts
709: are denoted by black squares (red diamonds).
710: \label{nirlum_sample}
711: }
712: \end{inlinefigure}
713:
714:
715: We construct two uniform NIR luminosity samples for
716: our metallicity analysis: a mid-$z$ sample and a
717: low-$z$ sample.
718: Although most of the spectra extend to about $1~\mu$m,
719: the sensitivity falls rapidly at the reddest wavelengths,
720: and some spectra are cut off at wavelengths
721: $<1~\mu$m because of their mask positions. Thus,
722: we choose a limiting upper wavelength of 9500~\AA.
723: The limiting upper wavelength of 9500~\AA\ corresponds
724: to $z<0.9$ ($z<0.475$) for the \oiii~$\lambda$5007~\AA\
725: (\ha) line to be observable if present. In each case this sets a
726: lower limit on the NIR luminosity, which corresponds to
727: the NIR flux limit at the maximum redshift. The mid-$z$
728: sample has $z=0.05-0.9$ and NIR luminosity
729: $>8\times10^{42}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$,
730: and the low-$z$ sample has $z=0.05-0.475$ and NIR luminosity
731: $>1.6\times10^{42}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$. These limits are shown
732: in Figure~\ref{nirlum} by the red (black) dashed lines
733: for the mid-$z$ (low-$z$) sample.
734: The low-redshift portion of the mid-$z$ sample is contained
735: as the high-mass subset of the low-$z$ sample.
736:
737: There are 1009 sources in the mid-$z$ sample, of which 929
738: (92\%) have spectroscopic redshifts. There are 378 sources
739: in the low-$z$ sample, of which 354 (96\%) have spectroscopic
740: redshifts. In Figures~\ref{nirlum_sample}a and
741: \ref{nirlum_sample}b we show blow-ups of Figures~\ref{nirlum}a
742: and \ref{nirlum}b to more clearly illustrate
743: both samples, but here our symbols distinguish
744: between absorption line redshifts {\em (red diamonds)\/}
745: and emission line redshifts {\em (black squares)\/}.
746: Of the 929 (354) spectroscopically identifed redshifts
747: in the mid-$z$ (low-$z$) sample, 210 (49) are based on absorption
748: line features. The absorbers comprise a much higher fraction of
749: the more luminous galaxes. Thus, the smaller
750: fraction of absorbers in the low-$z$ sample is partly
751: a consequence of the lower luminosity limit in that sample.
752:
753: We also construct two higher-redshift uniform NIR luminosity
754: samples for studying the evolution of the galaxy masses and
755: star formation histories. We will
756: refer to these as our high-$z$ and highest-$z$ samples.
757: The high-$z$ sample has $z=0.9-1.2$ and NIR luminosity
758: $>2\times 10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$. The highest-$z$ sample has
759: $z=1.2-1.5$ and NIR luminosity $>3\times 10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
760:
761:
762: \section{Fitting the Galaxy Spectral Energy Distributions}
763: \label{secfit}
764:
765: While NIR luminosities have been the preferred way to estimate
766: galaxy mass, there is still a wide range in the mass
767: to NIR luminosity ratios and there are still considerable
768: uncertainties in the models used to determine
769: the masses. The mass ratio for a
770: galaxy depends on its star formation history
771: and on the level of extinction (Brinchmann \& Ellis 2000).
772: We may estimate the conversion from NIR luminosity to mass
773: by fitting the galaxy SEDs with
774: model galaxy types modulated by an assumed extinction law
775: (e.g., Brinchmann \& Ellis 2000; Kauffmann et al.\ 2003a;
776: Bundy et al.\ 2005). We follow this procedure here to
777: estimate the masses of the galaxies and the extinctions.
778: We use the Bruzual \& Charlot (2003; hereafter, BC03) models
779: for ease of comparison with previous work; however, as we will
780: discuss, there has been considerable recent debate over
781: this calibration, which may overestimate galaxy mass.
782:
783: For every galaxy in each of our four uniform NIR luminosity
784: samples, we fitted BC03 models
785: assuming a Salpeter IMF, a solar metallicity, and a Calzetti
786: extinction law (Calzetti et al.\ 2000).
787: We included a range of types from single burst models to
788: exponentially declining models to constant star formation
789: models. For each galaxy we varied the age from
790: $5\times10^{7}$~yr to the maximum possible age of the
791: galaxy at its redshift. In making
792: the fits, we calculated the $\chi^2$ values assuming an
793: individual error of 0.1~mag in each band together with
794: the $1\sigma$ noise in each band, and we fitted the SED
795: over the rest-frame wavelength range $0.2-2.4~\mu$m.
796:
797: Our use of only solar metallicity models does not introduce
798: significant uncertainties in the inferred masses and extinctions.
799: As we shall discuss later there is a well-known strong
800: degeneracy between age and metallicity in the stellar
801: models. Introducing a range in metallicity in the models
802: therefore increases the spread in the possible ages while
803: leaving the other quantities nearly unchanged.
804: We have recomputed the results of the present paper using supersolar
805: and subsolar models and find this does not change any of the
806: conclusions.
807:
808: In our subsequent analysis we use the mass ratios
809: and extinctions corresponding to the minimum $\chi^2$
810: fits. Hereafter, we refer to these best fits as our
811: BC03 fits and the
812: corresponding masses and extinctions as
813: our BC03 masses and extinctions.
814: However, we note that the mass to NIR luminosity ratio
815: and extinction probability distributions
816: (see Kauffmann et al.\ 2003a)
817: show that there are still substantial uncertainties in
818: these quantities (e.g., Papovich et al.\ 2006).
819: These uncertainties are the largest for the blue galaxies
820: and can range up to 0.3~dex in the mass to NIR luminosity
821: ratio. This reflects the ambiguities in the type and extinction
822: fitting, where models with different star formation histories
823: and extinctions can reproduce the same galaxy SED.
824:
825: In Figure~\ref{bruzual_fit} we show our BC03
826: fits to two example galaxies. In (a) we show a red galaxy
827: at $z=0.850$ which is best fitted by no extinction
828: {\em (black squares)\/} and a single burst with an age of
829: 2.4~Gyr {\em (red SED)\/}. In (b) we show a red galaxy at
830: $z=0.433$ which is best fitted with a large extinction
831: of $E(B-V)=0.45$ {\em (black squares)\/} and a single burst
832: with an age of 0.18~Gyr {\em (red SED)\/}. However, as an example
833: of how our distinction between old galaxies and reddened
834: younger galaxies relies on the overall shape of the
835: SED, we also show in (b) a fit with no extinction
836: {\em (purple diamonds)\/}
837: and a 1~Gyr exponential decline with an age of 4.5~Gyr
838: {\em (purple SED)\/}. It would not be possible to
839: differentiate between these two fits with only the
840: optical data; however, with the NIR data the latter
841: is a significantly poorer fit. For all the fits shown the
842: solid portions of the curves indicate the regions over
843: which we made the fits. We did not fit to the rest-frame
844: MIR data because of the limitations of the BC03 models at
845: the longer wavelengths.
846:
847: However, there are very serious concerns about
848: determining the stellar masses from the population
849: synthesis models and, in particular, from the NIR
850: fluxes. Maraston (2005) pointed out that an
851: improved treatment of the thermally-pulsating
852: asymptotic giant branch (TP-AGB) stars resulted in a substantial
853: increase in the NIR light at intermediate ($\sim10^9$~yr)
854: ages relative to preceding population synthesis models.
855: This would reduce the stellar mass estimates
856: in the high-redshift galaxies. Bruzual (2007) reports similar
857: results when an improved treatment of the TP-AGB stars
858: is included in a revised version of the Bruzual-Charlot
859: code. Kannappan \& Gawiser (2007) have investigated the
860: differences in the various models using a local galaxy
861: sample and, while not coming to a conclusion about a
862: preferred model, they emphasize the uncertainties in the
863: mass determination as a function of galaxy type.
864:
865: Conselice et al.\ (2007; hereafter, Conselice07)
866: have used fits to the revised
867: Bruzual-Charlot models to argue that the decrease in the
868: average masses relative to BC03 is small for galaxies
869: in the $z=0.4-2$ redshift range when the masses are based
870: on rest-frame $0.7-1.5~\mu$m wavelengths. They find an
871: average drop in the masses of 0.08~dex relative to BC03
872: and a maximum decrease of about 20\%. However, averaging
873: may obscure the systematic effects of the uncertainties,
874: particularly when comparing the higher redshift samples
875: with local samples. For example, galaxies with ages of
876: $10^{10}$~yr will have BC03 masses that are consistent with
877: the Maraston (2005) and revised Bruzual-Charlot codes, while
878: those with ages of $10^{9}$~yr will have BC03 masses that
879: are about 25\% too high, and those with ages of
880: $10^{8}-10^{9}$~yr will have BC03 masses that are about 40\%
881: too high (see Fig.~3 of Bruzual 2007). We will consider the
882: possible effects of such systematic uncertainties on the
883: stellar mass density growth rates measured from the formed
884: stellar mass functions and the comparison of those rates
885: with the expected formed stellar mass density growth rates
886: produced by star formation in \S\ref{secsfh}.
887:
888:
889: %
890: % FIGURE 6
891: %
892: \begin{inlinefigure}
893: \figurenum{6}
894: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f6a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
895: \vskip -0.6cm
896: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f6b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
897: \vskip -0.2cm
898: \figcaption[]{
899: Sample BC03 fits to two galaxies.
900: (a) A red galaxy at $z=0.850$ is best
901: fitted with no extinction {\em (black squares
902: with the assumed errors from the text)\/} and
903: a single burst with an age of 2.4~Gyr {\em (red SED)\/}.
904: The solid portion of the curve shows the region
905: over which we made the fit.
906: (b) A red galaxy at $z=0.433$ is best fitted
907: with a large extinction of $E(B-V)=0.45$
908: {\em (black squares with the assumed errors from the text
909: show the observed fluxes)\/}
910: and a single burst with an age of 0.18~Gyr
911: {\em (the red solid line shows the galaxy SED without
912: extinction and the black line the SED with the extinction
913: included)\/}. The NIR data are required to distinguish
914: between this best-fit extinguished model and
915: another fit having no extinction {\em (purple
916: diamonds with the assumed errors from the text)\/} and a 1~Gyr
917: exponential decline with an age of 4.5~Gyr {\em (purple SED)\/}.
918: The solid portion of each curve shows the region over
919: which we made the fit.
920: Both are good fits to the rest frame optical
921: and UV but the model with no extinction is a significantly
922: poorer fit in the near IR. The no-extinction fit would
923: reduce the mass by a factor of five relative to the
924: and the inferred star-formation rate by a factor of thirty
925: relative to the best fit model.
926: \label{bruzual_fit}
927: }
928: \end{inlinefigure}
929:
930:
931: \subsection{Extinctions}
932:
933: Given the model uncertainties discussed above, it is critical
934: to determine how meaningful our BC03 extinctions are.
935: We may test them in two ways. First we look at how
936: they relate to the MIR properties of the galaxies, and then
937: we compare them with extinctions measured
938: from the Balmer lines. We note that the comparison of our BC03
939: extinctions with the MIR properties is affected by orientation,
940: which will add scatter to the comparison. However, for both
941: of our tests we find reasonable agreement between our BC03
942: extinctions and the dust properties measured in other ways.
943:
944: In Figure~\ref{f24hist} we show the distribution of the
945: BC03 extinctions for the mid-$z$ sample {\em (black histogram)\/}.
946: We find that roughly half of the galaxies in the sample
947: have weak extinctions of $E(B-V)<0.1$ or no measured extinction,
948: while the remainder lie in an extended tail up to our maximum
949: allowed value of $E(B-V)=0.63$.
950: The median extinction of A$_v=0.6$ is twice the local value
951: given by Kauffmann et al.\ (2003a). This is consistent with
952: the high-redshift galaxies having more gas and dust mass.
953: We shall return to this point in \S\ref{secgasmass}.
954:
955:
956: % generated with f24_hist.pro
957: %
958: % FIGURE 7
959: %
960: \begin{inlinefigure}
961: \figurenum{7}
962: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f7.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
963: \vskip -0.2cm
964: \figcaption[]{
965: Distribution of extinctions for the mid-$z$ sample
966: derived from our BC03 fits {\em (black histogram)\/}.
967: Roughly half of the galaxies have little or no extinction.
968: The red histogram shown underneath is the fraction of galaxies
969: detected at 24~$\mu$m. Only about 11\% of the galaxies with
970: weak extinctions of $E(B-V)<0.05$ are 24~$\mu$m sources, while
971: nearly all of the strongly extinguished sources are.
972: \label{f24hist}
973: }
974: \end{inlinefigure}
975:
976:
977: % generated with f24_nuvbol.pro
978: %
979: % FIGURE 8
980: %
981: \begin{inlinefigure}
982: \figurenum{8}
983: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f8.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
984: \vskip -0.2cm
985: \figcaption[]{
986: Comparison of the reradiated light that originated
987: from rest-frame $2000-3000$~\AA\ (see text for details)
988: with the rest-frame $24~\mu$m flux for the mid-$z$ sample.
989: The $24~\mu$m $K$-correction has been computed assuming
990: the M82 SED of Silva et al.\ (1998).
991: The red diamonds show sources with
992: $z=0.475-0.9$, and the black squares show
993: lower redshift sources. The galaxies without $24~\mu$m
994: detections are shown at the $80~\mu$Jy limit of the
995: $24~\mu$m data, and the galaxies with little or no
996: reradiated flux are shown at a nominal value of
997: $1.2\times10^{-15}$~ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$.
998: The sources containing AGNs based on their X-ray luminosities
999: are enclosed in green squares. There is a linear
1000: correlation {\em (black solid line)\/} between large
1001: reradiated fluxes and $24~\mu$m detections with a large
1002: spread ($\pm0.5$~dex, {\em blue dashed lines\/}).
1003: \label{reradiated}
1004: }
1005: \end{inlinefigure}
1006:
1007:
1008: We may test the extinctions derived from the BC03
1009: fits by comparing the extinguished UV light, which
1010: is reradiated into the FIR, with other completely independent
1011: measures of the dust reradiated light, such as the $24~\mu$m
1012: light. This is the longest wavelength light for which
1013: extremely deep images of the field have been obtained.
1014: In Figure~\ref{f24hist} we show the
1015: fraction of galaxies detected at 24~$\mu$m {\em (red histogram)\/}.
1016: Interestingly, we see that nearly all of the highly extinguished
1017: sources are also detected at $24~\mu$m. To further quantify
1018: this comparison, we computed the reradiated UV light from
1019: each galaxy in the mid-$z$ sample by subtracting the
1020: observed SED from the extinction corrected SED.
1021: In Figure~\ref{reradiated} we show the difference
1022: in the rest-frame $2000-3000$~\AA\ wavelength range
1023: (i.e., the UV flux that got reradiated) versus the
1024: rest-frame $24~\mu$m flux ($K$-corrected using the M82 SED
1025: of Silva et al.\ 1998).
1026:
1027: The sources with large reradiated fluxes are generally
1028: detected at $24~\mu$m, with a linear relation shown by
1029: the solid black line. There is a large
1030: spread in the relation ($\pm0.5$~dex, shown by the
1031: blue dashed lines), which most likely reflects
1032: the use of only the M82 template to
1033: obtain the $K$-corrections for the $24~\mu$m flux
1034: (see, e.g., Dale et al.\ 2005; Marcillac et al.\ 2006;
1035: Barger et al.\ 2007 for why this is not ideal).
1036: However, there is no substantial
1037: redshift change, with the higher redshift points
1038: {\em (red diamonds)\/} having the same distribution
1039: as the lower redshift points {\em (black squares)\/}.
1040:
1041: These results show that the assignment of
1042: substantial extinctions to galaxies by our BC03
1043: fits is confirmed by the MIR measurements. About
1044: 60\% of the $24~\mu$m sources in the mid-$z$ sample
1045: to the $80~\mu$Jy flux limit of the $24~\mu$m data
1046: are picked out in this way and lie between the dashed
1047: lines in Figure~\ref{reradiated}.
1048: However, some of the remaining $24~\mu$m sources in the
1049: mid-$z$ sample have low reradiated UV fluxes.
1050: (A few percent are clearly blended
1051: galaxies, where the $24~\mu$m flux arises from a
1052: different galaxy than the one being fitted in the
1053: UV, but this is a small effect.) Therefore, a critical
1054: question for the present analysis is whether this
1055: implies that we are failing to assign extinctions
1056: to galaxies where there should be extinctions.
1057:
1058: We have checked this by inspecting the spectra
1059: (see \S\ref{secspectral}) of the galaxies in the
1060: mid-$z$ sample with \ha\ in their spectrum which
1061: are detected at $24~\mu$m but for which our BC03 fits
1062: have assigned a low extinction.
1063: In all cases the $f$(\hb)$/f$(\ha) ratios
1064: are also consistent with little extinction.
1065: These sources may contain obscured nuclei that
1066: are only seen in the MIR and have little effect
1067: on the measured properties of their host galaxies.
1068: Indeed, the brightest 24~$\mu$m source in the
1069: mid-$z$ sample is not picked out by its reradiated UV
1070: flux. It is an X-ray source, and it has a Seyfert~2
1071: spectrum, which suggests that it is an obscured AGN.
1072: There is also a higher fraction of X-ray AGNs
1073: among the remaining sources with 24~$\mu$m detections
1074: but low reradiated UV fluxes.
1075: (In Figure~\ref{reradiated}
1076: we enclose in green open squares sources containing
1077: AGNs based on their X-ray luminosities.) However,
1078: many of these sources are not X-ray detected and, if the
1079: $24~\mu$m light in these sources is produced by AGN
1080: activity, then the nucleus must be highly obscured
1081: in the optical and in the X-ray.
1082:
1083:
1084: \subsection{Masses}
1085: \label{secmass}
1086:
1087: In Figure~\ref{mass_ratio} we show the ratio of
1088: the stellar mass to the observed (i.e., uncorrected
1089: for extinction) NIR luminosity versus the observed
1090: NIR luminosity for our low-$z$ and mid-$z$ samples.
1091: We hereafter refer to this ratio as the mass ratio.
1092: For both samples the mass ratios range from values of about
1093: $10^{-34}$ (blue galaxies) to $10^{-33}$ (evolved galaxies
1094: with ages comparable to the present age of the universe),
1095: though the more luminous galaxies are primarily at the
1096: high (evolved) end. Multiplying the $10^{-33}$ upper limit
1097: on the mass ratio {\em (purple line)\/} by the NIR
1098: luminosity limits of the low-$z$ and mid-$z$ samples,
1099: we find that this upper limit implies
1100: that the low-$z$ and mid-$z$ samples include all galaxies
1101: with masses above $\sim 2\times10^{9}$~M$_\odot$
1102: and $\sim 10^{10}$~M$_\odot$, respectively.
1103: For our high-$z$ and highest-$z$ samples, the corresponding
1104: mass limits are $2\times 10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
1105: and $3\times 10^{10}$~M$_\odot$, respectively.
1106:
1107:
1108: % generated with mass_ratio.pro
1109: %
1110: % FIGURE 9
1111: %
1112: \begin{inlinefigure}
1113: \figurenum{9}
1114: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f9.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1115: \vskip -0.2cm
1116: \figcaption[]{
1117: Ratio of the stellar mass to the observed (i.e.,
1118: uncorrected for extinction) NIR luminosity vs. observed NIR
1119: luminosity. The mass ratios were computed from our BC03 fits,
1120: which include the effects of extinction. The low-$z$ (mid-$z$)
1121: sample is shown with the red diamonds (black squares).
1122: The purple line shows the maximum mass ratio adopted in
1123: computing the mass limits on the samples.
1124: \label{mass_ratio}
1125: }
1126: \end{inlinefigure}
1127:
1128:
1129: We also computed the mass to luminosity
1130: ratios ($M/L_{z'}$) for the extinction corrected $z'$-band
1131: luminosity, $L_{z'}$, following the procedures given in
1132: Kauffmann et al.\ (2004). For $z=0.05-0.9$,
1133: we obtain a median $M/L_{z'}=1.1$ in the $10^{11}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$
1134: range and a median $M/L_{z'}=0.7$ in the $10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$
1135: range. As expected, since the high-redshift galaxies
1136: are younger and have higher star formation rates, these values
1137: are about a factor of two lower than the local values. After
1138: correcting the Kauffmann et al.\ (2004) local sample's
1139: Kroupa IMF stellar masses to our Salpeter IMF stellar masses,
1140: their median values are about 2.5 for the high-luminosity galaxies
1141: and about 1.1 for the lower luminosity galaxies, which we may
1142: roughly compare with our mass-selected values.
1143:
1144: In Figure~\ref{mass_byz} we show the stellar masses of
1145: the galaxies in our NIR sample over the redshift range
1146: $z=0.05-1.5$. The purple solid lines show the mass
1147: limits given above, to which we expect each of the
1148: samples to be complete. (Note that the purple line
1149: for the mid-$z$ sample has been truncated below
1150: $z=0.475$ where the sample overlaps with the high-mass
1151: end of the low-$z$ sample.) We mark with red diamonds the
1152: sources with $2-8$~keV or $0.5-2$~keV luminosities
1153: above $3\times10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$, where the AGN
1154: luminosity could contaminate the NIR photometry.
1155: However, the number of such sources is too small to
1156: affect the results.
1157: There are only a small number of very high-mass galaxies
1158: in the sample. Between $z=0$ and $z=1.5$ we find only
1159: 13 galaxies with masses above $10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$
1160: (shown by the green dashed line in Figure~\ref{mass_byz}).
1161: As can be seen from the figure,
1162: there is a tendency for the more massive galaxies to lie
1163: in the high-density filaments in the sample
1164: (Cohen et al.\ 1996, 2000). We will return to this point
1165: in \S\ref{secenv} when we consider the
1166: environmental dependences of the sample.
1167:
1168:
1169: %
1170: % FIGURE 10
1171: %
1172: \begin{inlinefigure}
1173: \figurenum{10}
1174: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f10.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1175: \vskip -0.2cm
1176: \figcaption[]{
1177: Stellar mass vs. redshift for
1178: $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (diamonds)\/},
1179: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (squares)\/}, $z=0.9-1.2$
1180: {\em (downward pointing triangles)\/}, and
1181: $z=1.2-1.5$ {\em (upward pointing triangles)\/}.
1182: The purple horizontal lines show the masses above which each
1183: sample (low-$z$, mid-$z$, high-$z$, highest-$z$) is expected to
1184: be complete. Note that the purple line for the mid-$z$ sample
1185: has been truncated below $z=0.475$ where that sample overlaps
1186: with the high-mass end of the low-$z$ sample.
1187: The red diamonds show the small number of X-ray sources with
1188: $2-8$~keV or $0.5-2$~keV luminosities above
1189: $3\times10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$. The green dashed line
1190: shows a logarithmic mass of 11.5~M$_\odot$, above
1191: which there are relatively few galaxies.
1192: \label{mass_byz}
1193: }
1194: \end{inlinefigure}
1195:
1196:
1197: \section{Spectral Line Measurements}
1198: \label{secspectral}
1199:
1200: \subsection{Equivalent Widths}
1201: \label{secew}
1202:
1203: For each spectrum we measured the equivalent widths (EWs)
1204: of a standard set of lines: \sii~$\lambda\lambda6717, 6731$,
1205: \ha~$\lambda6563$, \nii~$\lambda6584$, \oiii~$\lambda5007$,
1206: \hb~$\lambda4861$, and \oii~$\lambda3727$.
1207: For the stronger lines (rest-frame EW$>10$~\AA)
1208: we used a full Gaussian fit together with a linear fit to the
1209: continuum baseline. For the weaker lines we held the full width
1210: constant using the value measured in the stronger lines, if this
1211: was available, or, if not, then using the nominal width
1212: (i.e., the resolution of the spectrum). For the weaker lines
1213: we also set the central wavelength to the redshifted value.
1214: We measured the noise as a function of wavelength by
1215: fitting to random positions in the spectrum and computing
1216: the dispersion in the results.
1217:
1218: In Figure~\ref{ewha}a we show the rest-frame EW(\hb) versus
1219: NIR luminosity for the mid-$z\ (0.05-0.9)$ sample, and in
1220: Figure~\ref{ewha}b we show the rest-frame EW(\ha) versus
1221: NIR luminosity for the low-$z\ (0.05-0.475)$ sample.
1222: Both show a strong trend to higher EWs at lower
1223: NIR luminosities (see also Fig.~\ref{ewhb_median}),
1224: reflecting the higher specific star
1225: formation rates (the star formation rate per unit galaxy
1226: stellar mass) in the smaller galaxies. Absorption line
1227: galaxies {\em (red squares)\/} appear at
1228: $\gtrsim 10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
1229:
1230: Roughly half of the mid-$z$ sample have rest-frame EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA.
1231: At this EW the emission lines may be strong
1232: enough to make metallicity estimates with line ratios.
1233: The fraction of galaxies with a corresponding rest-frame
1234: EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\ (assuming the case B Balmer ratio
1235: discussed below) in the low-$z$ sample is closer to 75\%.
1236:
1237:
1238: %
1239: % FIGURE 11
1240: %
1241: \begin{inlinefigure}
1242: \figurenum{11}
1243: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f11a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1244: \vskip -0.6cm
1245: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f11b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1246: \vskip -0.2cm
1247: \figcaption[]{
1248: (a) Rest-frame EW(\hb) vs. NIR luminosity
1249: for the $z=0.05-0.9$ mid-$z$ sample. (b) Rest-frame EW(\ha) vs. NIR
1250: luminosity for the $z=0.05-0.475$ low-$z$ sample.
1251: In both panels the cyan diamonds
1252: show sources containing AGNs based on their X-ray luminosities,
1253: the purple triangles show 20~cm detected sources,
1254: and the red squares show sources with absorption line redshifts.
1255: \label{ewha}
1256: }
1257: \end{inlinefigure}
1258:
1259:
1260: %
1261: % FIGURE 12
1262: %
1263: \begin{inlinefigure}
1264: \figurenum{12}
1265: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f12.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1266: \vskip -0.2cm
1267: \figcaption[]{
1268: Median rest-frame EW(\hb) vs. NIR luminosity for the
1269: mid-$z$ sample. The symbols correspond to values in the redshift
1270: intervals $z=0.65-0.9$ {\em (black triangles)\/},
1271: $z=0.35-0.65$ {\em (purple diamonds)\/}, and
1272: $z=0.05-0.35$ {\em (red squares)\/}.
1273: The presence of strong emission lines suitable for
1274: measuring metallicities is highly dependent on both
1275: NIR luminosity and redshift.
1276: \label{ewhb_median}
1277: }
1278: \end{inlinefigure}
1279:
1280:
1281: We also show in Figures~\ref{ewha}a and \ref{ewha}b
1282: the sources that contain AGNs
1283: based on their X-ray luminosities {\em (cyan diamonds)\/}
1284: and the 20~cm detected sources {\em (purple triangles)\/}.
1285: While the 20~cm sources often have quite strong
1286: Balmer emission lines, consistent with them being high-end star
1287: formers, the AGNs generally have weak Balmer emission lines.
1288: The weakness of the AGN Balmer lines results in most of
1289: them being automatically excluded from our
1290: metallicity analysis, but we also use the X-ray signatures
1291: to identify and exclude any remaining AGNs.
1292:
1293: Not only is the presence of strong emission lines a strong
1294: function of NIR luminosity, but because of
1295: the decrease in the overall star formation rates with
1296: decreasing redshift, it is also
1297: a strong function of redshift. We show this in
1298: Figure~\ref{ewhb_median}, where we plot the median rest-frame
1299: EW(\hb) for the mid-$z$ sample versus NIR luminosity for
1300: three redshift intervals spanning the full redshift range.
1301: The rapid drop in the EWs with decreasing redshift can be clearly
1302: seen. The change in the emission line strengths with redshift
1303: introduces a strong selection bias when comparing emission
1304: line metallicities in galaxies at different redshifts.
1305: This is an important point, which we will return to in
1306: \S\ref{secabs}.
1307:
1308: The EW(\hb) is reduced by the effects of the underlying
1309: stellar absorption, and we must correct for this
1310: effect. The simplest procedure is to apply a single offset.
1311: Kobulnicky \& Phillips (2003) found an offset of $-2$~\AA\
1312: by measuring several Balmer lines in 22 galaxy spectra
1313: (referred to as the K92+ sample in their paper) and obtaining
1314: a self-consistent reddening and stellar absorption solution
1315: for each galaxy.
1316: However, the correction in our data is smaller than
1317: this, possibly because of the fitting methods we used.
1318: In particular, the Gaussian fits to the emission lines are
1319: narrower than the absorption lines, and it is only the
1320: absorption integrated through the Gaussian which we need
1321: to correct.
1322:
1323: We have estimated the correction as follows. First we averaged
1324: the normalized spectra of galaxies in the low-$z$ sample
1325: grouped by EW(\ha). We show a few of these averaged
1326: spectra in Figure~\ref{composite} [those with
1327: EW(\ha$)<5$~\AA, EW(\ha$)=5-15$~\AA, EW(\ha$)=15-30$~\AA,
1328: and EW(\ha$)=30-60$~\AA], where the bottom spectrum
1329: [EW(\ha$)<5$~\AA] is the averaged spectrum of the absorption
1330: line galaxies in the low-$z$ sample (i.e., the absence of \ha\
1331: emission guarantees that there is little \hb\ emission).
1332: We then renormalized the averaged spectrum of the absorption
1333: line galaxies to match each of the other averaged spectra in
1334: wavelength regions outside the emission lines. These fits are
1335: shown in Figure~\ref{composite} in red. The renormalized
1336: absorption spectrum was then subtracted to form a corrected
1337: spectrum. Finally, we measured the EW(\hb) in the corrected
1338: and uncorrected spectra.
1339: In Figure~\ref{ewdiff} we plot the difference of these two
1340: measurements versus the EW(\ha).
1341: We see no strong dependence of the \hb\ correction on
1342: the galaxy type. Thus, we adopt a fixed offset of 1~\AA\ to
1343: correct for the stellar absorption, regardless of galaxy type.
1344: (Our results are not significantly changed if we use a
1345: 2~\AA\ rather than a 1~\AA\ correction.)
1346: In our metals analysis we will restrict to galaxies with
1347: corrected EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\ to minimize the systematic
1348: uncertainties introduced by this procedure. Hereafter,
1349: we refer to the corrected EW(\hb) as EW(\hb).
1350:
1351:
1352: %
1353: % FIGURE 13
1354: %
1355: \begin{inlinefigure}
1356: \figurenum{13}
1357: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f13.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1358: \vskip -0.2cm
1359: \figcaption[]{
1360: Averages of the normalized spectra vs.
1361: rest-frame wavelength for galaxies in the low-$z$ sample
1362: {\em (black spectra)\/}. The bottom
1363: spectrum shows the averaged spectrum for sources with
1364: rest-frame EW(\ha$)<5$~\AA. This defines an absorption
1365: line spectrum. The remaining spectra from bottom to top
1366: correspond to rest-frame EW(\ha$)=5-15$, $15-30$,
1367: and $30-60$~\AA, respectively. Each spectrum is offset
1368: in the vertical direction to separate them.
1369: We also show in red the absorption line spectrum normalized to
1370: each of the other averaged spectra, which we used to remove the
1371: underlying stellar absorption.
1372: \label{composite}
1373: }
1374: \end{inlinefigure}
1375:
1376:
1377: %
1378: % FIGURE 14
1379: %
1380: \begin{inlinefigure}
1381: \figurenum{14}
1382: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f14.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1383: \vskip -0.2cm
1384: \figcaption[]{
1385: Measured correction to the rest-frame EW(\hb) vs. the
1386: rest-frame EW(\ha).
1387: \label{ewdiff}
1388: }
1389: \end{inlinefigure}
1390:
1391:
1392: \subsection{Line fluxes}
1393: \label{secflux}
1394:
1395: Generally the spectra were not obtained at the parallactic
1396: angle, since this is determined by the DEIMOS mask orientation.
1397: Nor were spectrophotometric standards regularly observed.
1398: Thus, flux calibration is difficult and special care must
1399: be taken in determining fluxes. Relative line fluxes can be
1400: measured from the spectra without flux calibration, as long as
1401: we restrict the line measurements to the short
1402: wavelength range where the DEIMOS response is essentially
1403: constant. For example, one can assume the responses of
1404: neighboring lines (e.g., \oiii$~\lambda$4949 and
1405: \oiii$~\lambda$5007) are the same and then measure
1406: the flux ratio without calibration. However, to measure
1407: quantities such as the R23 metal diagnostic ratio (see \S\ref{secr23}
1408: for definition)
1409: and to estimate the extinction and ionization parameters
1410: in the galaxies, we must calibrate
1411: the line fluxes over much wider wavelength ranges.
1412: We do this by using the broadband fluxes to calibrate the
1413: local continuum. We then use the equivalent width to compute
1414: the line flux. This method should work well as long as
1415: the sky subtraction is precise and the spectral continuum
1416: level well determined.
1417:
1418: In addition to the line fluxes, we also measured the
1419: 4000~\AA\ break strength in the galaxies. To do this
1420: we measured the ratio of the average flux
1421: (in units of ergs~cm$^{-2}$~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$) at
1422: $4050-4250$~\AA\ to that at $3750-3950$~\AA\ using
1423: the extinction corrected spectra normalized
1424: by the instrument throughput, which was measured by
1425: R.~Schiavon \\(\verb+http://www.ucolick.org/~ripisc/results.html+).
1426: Given the short wavelength span,
1427: this ratio should be fairly insensitive to the flux
1428: calibration and extinction, but it could be affected
1429: by the accuracy of the absolute sky subtraction.
1430:
1431: We can use the calibrated spectra to search
1432: for any relative offsets in the determination of the
1433: zero points in the imaging data, and inversely
1434: we can test the spectral shapes by comparing
1435: with the photometric colors from the imaging
1436: data. We carried out these tests by computing
1437: the ratio of the rest-frame $B$ to $U$ bands from
1438: the spectra and comparing this with the photometrically
1439: determined values for galaxies with masses
1440: $>10^{10}$~M$_\odot$. Over this
1441: wide wavelength range we found that the measured offsets
1442: between the photometric and spectroscopic measurements
1443: showed no dependence on redshift over the $z=0-1.1$
1444: range where the values can be measured (see Figure~\ref{b4000_test}).
1445: (Beyond $z=1.1$ the 4500\AA\ band moves above the upper wavelength
1446: limit of the spectra.)
1447: This shows that there are no relative
1448: errors in the photometric calibration of the UV and optical
1449: data. There is a only a small systematic offset throughout
1450: which averages to $-0.05$~mag.
1451: Translated to the smaller wavelength range
1452: used in the 4000~\AA\ break measurement, we will underestimate
1453: the break strength by a multiplicative factor of 1.02
1454: on average. The measured spread in the offsets translates
1455: to a $1\sigma$ multiplicative error of 1.07 in the individual
1456: 4000~\AA\ break strengths.
1457:
1458:
1459: %
1460: % FIGURE 15
1461: %
1462: \begin{inlinefigure}
1463: \figurenum{15}
1464: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f15.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1465: \vskip -0.2cm
1466: \figcaption[]{
1467: Magnitude offset between the rest-frame $3400-4500$~\AA\
1468: magnitudes measured from the spectra and those measured from the
1469: photometry vs. redshift for $z=0-1.1$ galaxies with masses
1470: $>10^{10}~$M$_\odot$ {\em (black squares)\/}.
1471: \label{b4000_test}
1472: }
1473: \end{inlinefigure}
1474:
1475:
1476: \section{Continuum versus Line Extinction}
1477: \label{secrelext}
1478:
1479: Ideally we would measure the extinctions for the line
1480: fluxes from the Balmer ratio $f($\ha$)/f($\hb$)$, since the H~II
1481: regions producing the emission lines may have different reddening
1482: from the stars providing the continuum. In particular,
1483: we might expect reddening in the H~II region to be systematically
1484: higher than reddening in the continuum, if the H~II regions
1485: lie in regions of higher gas density (Kinney et al.\ 1994).
1486: However, in the present sample we can only measure the Balmer
1487: ratio extinction in the low-$z$ sample.
1488: While our analysis of the star formation and stellar mass density
1489: histories can be done without reference to the line fluxes,
1490: we do require an estimate of the line extinction in computing
1491: the metallicity diagnostics and in comparing equivalent
1492: widths with galaxy models.
1493:
1494: We therefore checked how well the continuum extinctions derived
1495: from the BC03 fits match to the extinctions derived from
1496: the Balmer ratios in the low-$z$ sample. In
1497: Figure~\ref{balmer}a we show $f$(\hb)$/f$(\ha) versus
1498: NIR luminosity for the low-$z$ sample
1499: with rest-frame EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA.
1500: At low NIR luminosities the median values {\em (red squares)\/}
1501: are very close to an intrinsic $f$(\hb)$/f$(\ha) ratio of
1502: 0.35 (the ratio for case B recombination at
1503: $T=10^4$~K and $n_e\sim 10^2-10^4$~cm$^{-3}$, Osterbrock 1989;
1504: {\em red solid line\/}),
1505: suggesting that there is little extinction. Only in the
1506: highest luminosity galaxies (NIR luminosities
1507: $>10^{44}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$) does the ratio fall significantly
1508: below the case B ratio. The highest NIR luminosity galaxies
1509: pick out the 20~cm detected sources, which are shown with
1510: the cyan triangles.
1511:
1512: In Figure~\ref{balmer}b we show the Balmer ratio after
1513: applying the extinction corrections derived from our BC03 fits.
1514: As can be seen from the median values {\em (red squares)\/},
1515: this completely removes the dependence on NIR luminosity.
1516: Thus, the SED derived extinctions can be used to
1517: correct the average line ratios. However, the individual points
1518: still scatter significantly about the median, implying
1519: that there are systematic uncertainties in the flux
1520: determinations.
1521:
1522:
1523: %
1524: % FIGURE 16
1525: %
1526: \begin{figure*}
1527: \figurenum{16}
1528: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f16a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
1529: \psfig{figure=f16b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1530: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f16c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
1531: \psfig{figure=f16d.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1532: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f16e.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
1533: \psfig{figure=f16f.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1534: \figcaption[]{
1535: In all panels we consider only galaxies in the low-$z$
1536: sample with rest-frame EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA. The large red squares
1537: denote the median values at each luminosity with $\pm1\sigma$
1538: errors computed using the median sign method.
1539: The 20~cm sources are denoted by cyan triangles.
1540: All ratios are plotted vs. NIR luminosity.
1541: (a) Balmer ratio. (b) Extinction corrected Balmer ratio.
1542: In these two panels the case B ratio in the absence
1543: of extinction is shown by the red horizontal line.
1544: (c) $f($\oii$~\lambda3727)/f($\ha).
1545: (d) Extinction corrected $f($\oii$~\lambda3727)/f($\ha).
1546: In these two panels the $f($\oii$~\lambda3727)/f($\ha) ratio
1547: used to compute the calibration of the \oii$~\lambda3727$
1548: determined SFR is shown by the red horizontal
1549: line. (e) $f($UV$)/f($\ha) using the rest-frame UV flux
1550: defined in the text.
1551: (f) Extinction corrected $f($UV$)/f($\ha).
1552: In these two panels the $f($UV$)/f($\ha) ratio
1553: used to compute the calibration of the UV determined SFR
1554: is shown by the red horizontal line.
1555: \label{balmer}
1556: }
1557: \end{figure*}
1558:
1559:
1560: We next estimated the extinctions from the Balmer ratios
1561: for the low-$z$ sample with rest-frame EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\
1562: and made a linear fit against the continuum extinctions.
1563: This gives the relation
1564: %
1565: \begin{equation}
1566: E(B-V)_{\rm spectral} = 0.0 + (0.87\pm0.18) E(B-V)_{\rm BC03} \,.
1567: \label{eqnebv}
1568: \end{equation}
1569: %
1570: This suggests that the line extinction is, if anything, smaller
1571: than the continuum extinction, but that, within the errors, the
1572: two extinction measurements are consistent on average. We
1573: will therefore use the BC03 extinctions to deredden the line
1574: fluxes at higher redshifts. However, we will regularly check
1575: to make sure that this assumption is providing consistent results.
1576:
1577:
1578: \section{Star Formation Rates}
1579: \label{secsfr}
1580:
1581: \subsection{Relative Calibrations}
1582: \label{seccal}
1583:
1584: Extensive discussions of the calibrations of the
1585: star formation diagnostics can be found throughout
1586: the recent literature (e.g., Kennicutt 1998;
1587: Rosa-Gonz{\'a}lez et al.\ 2002; Hopkins et al.\ 2003;
1588: Kewley et al.\ 2004; Moustakas et al.\ 2006).
1589: However, for consistency, it is best to internally
1590: calibrate data sets where possible. We can
1591: do this using our low-$z$ sample.
1592:
1593: In Figures~\ref{balmer}c and \ref{balmer}e we show,
1594: respectively, $f$(\oii)$/f$(\ha) and $f$(UV)$/f$(\ha)
1595: versus NIR luminosity for the low-$z$
1596: sample with rest-frame EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA.
1597: Here we have defined the rest-frame UV luminosity as the
1598: integral over the frequency range $10^{15}$ to
1599: $1.5\times10^{15}$~Hz (which corresponds to the wavelength
1600: range 1993 to 2990~\AA) minus 0.03 of the NIR luminosity.
1601: The latter correction, the value of which was determined
1602: from absorption line galaxies in the sample,
1603: removes the contribution from the older stars in the galaxy.
1604: Since our shortest measured wavelength
1605: is the $U$-band centered at 3700~\AA,
1606: determining the UV luminosity requires an extrapolation
1607: for the lowest redshift sources.
1608:
1609: Similar to what we saw for the Balmer ratio, there is
1610: substantial extinction only in the highest NIR luminosity
1611: galaxies. In Figures~\ref{balmer}d and \ref{balmer}f we
1612: plot the same ratios shown, respectively, in
1613: Figures~\ref{balmer}c and \ref{balmer}e, but this time
1614: after applying our BC03 extinction corrections. Again the
1615: medians {\em (red squares)\/} are flattened out by the
1616: extinction corrections.
1617:
1618: To obtain the SFR calibrations and to quantify the scatter
1619: in the flux ratios, in Figure~\ref{calibrate} we show,
1620: respectively, the distribution of the extinction corrected
1621: logarithmic (a) Balmer ratios, (b) $f$(\oii)$/f$(\ha) ratios,
1622: and (c) $f$(UV)$/f$(\ha) ratios {\em (black histograms)\/},
1623: together with Gaussian fits to the distributions
1624: {\em (purple dashed curves)\/}.
1625: The mean value of the extinction corrected Balmer
1626: ratios agrees precisely with the case B ratio
1627: {\em (red line in Fig.~\ref{calibrate}a)\/},
1628: illustrating how well the extinction corrections work.
1629: However, there is a symmetric scatter
1630: with a $1\sigma$ dispersion of 0.13~dex
1631: in the Balmer ratio about the case B value. We take this
1632: as a rough measure of the systematic and statistical
1633: errors in the extinction corrected flux determinations
1634: at the \hb\ wavelength relative to \ha.
1635:
1636: Regarding the $f$(\oii)$/f$(\ha) ratio, it has been shown
1637: that there is a dependence of this ratio on the oxygen
1638: abundance (e.g., Kewley et al.\ 2004; Mouhcine et al.\ 2005;
1639: Moustakas et al.\ 2006). In fact, it can be seen
1640: from Figures~\ref{calibrate}b and \ref{calibrate}c
1641: that the UV flux has a somewhat
1642: tighter relation to the \ha\ flux than the \oii\ flux does,
1643: despite both the extrapolation made to shorter wavelengths
1644: for the lowest redshift sources to determine the UV flux
1645: and the larger wavelength
1646: separation of the UV from \ha\ than of \oii\ from \ha\
1647: (which means any uncertainties in the extinction corrections
1648: would have a larger effect).
1649: In addition, there are no significant outliers in the
1650: $f$(UV)$/f$(\ha) ratios, unlike the case for the
1651: $f$(\oii)$/f$(\ha) ratios.
1652:
1653: We can now use the flux ratios to determine
1654: the calibrations to star formation rates (SFRs).
1655: We use as our primary calibration the conversion of $L($UV)
1656: to SFR from the BC03 models.
1657: The calibration for any individual galaxy depends on the
1658: galaxy star formation history (SFH), but the ensemble average
1659: is well determined since it is simply the amount of UV light
1660: produced per unit mass of stars. Since our principal goal
1661: is to compute the universal SFH, this
1662: is the appropriate quantity to choose. For our definition
1663: of the rest-frame UV luminosity given above,
1664: %
1665: \begin{equation}
1666: \log {\rm SFR} = -42.63 + \log L({\rm UV}) \,.
1667: \end{equation}
1668: %
1669: Here the SFR is in M$_\odot$ per year and is computed
1670: for the Salpeter IMF used throughout this paper.
1671: $L$(UV) denotes the intrinsic (i.e., corrected for
1672: extinction) rest-frame UV luminosity and is in units of
1673: ergs~s$^{-1}$. Our UV calibration is slightly
1674: lower than the value of $-42.55$ that would be obtained
1675: from the commonly used relation given by Kennicutt (1998).
1676: The Kennicutt relation is appropriate for an individual
1677: galaxy undergoing constant star formation, which gives
1678: a lower UV flux per unit SFR.
1679:
1680:
1681: %
1682: % FIGURE 17
1683: %
1684: \begin{inlinefigure}
1685: \figurenum{17}
1686: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f17a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1687: \vskip -0.6cm
1688: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f17b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1689: \vskip -0.6cm
1690: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f17c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1691: \vskip -0.2cm
1692: \figcaption[]{
1693: Distribution of the logarithm of the
1694: extinction corrected ratio of (a) \hb$~\lambda4861$,
1695: (b) \oii$~\lambda3727$, and (c) rest-frame UV flux as defined
1696: in the text to the \ha$~\lambda6563$ flux for the low-$z$ sample
1697: with rest-frame EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\ {\em (black histograms)\/}.
1698: In each case the Gaussian fit is shown by the purple dashed curve.
1699: In (a) the red vertical line shows the case B value,
1700: which agrees precisely with the mean measured ratio.
1701: \label{calibrate}
1702: }
1703: \end{inlinefigure}
1704:
1705:
1706: We next compute the \ha\ calibration relative to
1707: our UV calibration based on the data. We must
1708: be careful in our object selection here since
1709: there is a potential problem with using objects
1710: selected to have \ha\ flux. This arises because
1711: the \ha\ is produced by more massive and
1712: younger stars than those responsible for the
1713: UV light. As long as the SFR is smoothly changing
1714: with time, then this is not a large effect. However,
1715: if the galaxies undergo episodic bursts rather than
1716: a smooth evolution (as we shall argue is the case
1717: in \S\ref{seccolor}), then we will bias this ratio
1718: since we will not count galaxies which still have
1719: substantial UV light but where \ha\ producing
1720: stars are no longer present. The different time averaging
1721: present in the emission line and UV calibrations
1722: should be borne in mind when considering the SFR
1723: of individual galaxies, but it should average
1724: out in the ensemble.
1725:
1726: We can properly calibrate the \ha/UV
1727: ratio by computing the average \ha/UV for a
1728: UV-selected sample, which will then include the
1729: all of the \ha\ emitters as a subsample. Using the
1730: UV-selected sample we obtain
1731: %
1732: \begin{equation}
1733: \log {\rm SFR} = -40.90 + \log L({\rm H}\alpha) \,,
1734: \label{eqhaSFR}
1735: \end{equation}
1736: %
1737: with a $1\sigma$ spread of 0.24~dex. This differs by
1738: 0.2 dex from the value of $-41.1$ given in Kennicutt
1739: (1998) and is also higher than the value that would
1740: be derived from the BC03 models. (The H alpha luminosity
1741: for the BC03 models is derived from the ionizing photon
1742: production assuming this is fully absorbed in the galaxy.)
1743: This is not a consequence
1744: of the extinction model, since even using the unreddened
1745: values only reduces our value to $-41.03$.
1746:
1747: This result can be restated as the sample having
1748: too much UV light relative to \ha\ for the adopted IMF.
1749: The \ha\
1750: production is dominated by the most massive stars, and
1751: it is probable that the high UV/\ha\ ratio is a consequence
1752: of differences in the true high-end IMF relative to that
1753: used in the models.
1754: As we noted in the introduction all of the currently
1755: used IMFs have similar high mass slopes and so would
1756: not change this result. Rather we need more intermediate
1757: mass stars relative to the very high mass end in the IMF.
1758: Fardal et al.\ (2007) describe this type of IMF as "paunchy"
1759: and as we shall discuss later it can resolve a number of
1760: additional problems in making a consistent interperetation
1761: of the data set.
1762:
1763: From the mean value of the logarithmic $f$(\hb)$/f$(\ha)
1764: ratio, which is just the case B value (see Fig.~\ref{calibrate}),
1765: we find the calibration of Equation~\ref{eqhaSFR} can be
1766: translated to
1767: %
1768: \begin{equation}
1769: \log {\rm SFR} = -40.45 + \log L({\rm H}\beta) \,,
1770: \end{equation}
1771: %
1772: with a $1\sigma$ spread of 0.13~dex. \hb\ is often avoided
1773: as a SFR diagnostic because of concerns about the contamination
1774: by the underlying stellar absorption.
1775: However, with such a low $1\sigma$ spread
1776: for our low-$z$ sample, it appears to be quite a good diagnostic.
1777:
1778: From Figure~\ref{calibrate} we saw that the UV flux
1779: provided a better estimate of the SFR than the \oii\ flux
1780: did. The average calibration for \oii,
1781: using the mean value of the logarithmic $f$(\oii)$/f$(\ha)
1782: ratio, is
1783: %
1784: \begin{equation}
1785: \log {\rm SFR} = -41.03 + \log L({\rm [OII]}~\lambda3727) \,,
1786: \end{equation}
1787: %
1788: with a $1\sigma$ spread of 0.26~dex. This may be compared with
1789: the value of $-40.85$ given in Kennicutt (1998).
1790:
1791:
1792: %
1793: % FIGURE 18
1794: %
1795: \begin{inlinefigure}
1796: \figurenum{18}
1797: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f18.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1798: \figcaption[]{
1799: Ratio of the \oii\ SFR to the \ha\
1800: SFR versus the \ha\ SFR (all extinction
1801: corrected) for the low-$z$ sample with EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\ and
1802: $\log({\rm SFR}({\rm H}\alpha))>-0.5$ {\em (black squares)\/}.
1803: The black dotted line shows the least-square polynomial fit
1804: with a gradient of $-0.09$~dex per dex.
1805: \label{sfrratio_sfr}
1806: }
1807: \end{inlinefigure}
1808:
1809:
1810: The broader spread in the \oii\ calibration
1811: is reflected in its systematic dependence on
1812: the galaxy properties. In Figure~\ref{sfrratio_sfr}
1813: we show the weak dependence of the ratio of the \oii\ SFR to
1814: the \ha\ SFR on the \ha\ SFR (all extinction corrected).
1815: There is a $0.09\pm0.05$~dex decline per dex
1816: increase in the \ha\ SFR, which is slightly larger than
1817: the locally measured $0.03\pm0.02$~dex decline per dex
1818: increase in the \ha\ SFR measured to somewhat lower \ha\ SFRs
1819: (Kewley et al.\ 2004) but consistent within the errors.
1820: We show in \S\ref{seccompare} that the dependence
1821: of the SFR ratio on the mass of the galaxy is even
1822: stronger than its dependence on the \ha\ SFR of the galaxy.
1823:
1824: Given the larger scatter and systematic dependences of the
1825: \oii\ calibration, we will adopt the UV calibration as our
1826: primary calibration.
1827:
1828:
1829: \subsection{Comparisons Using the Mid-$z$ Sample}
1830: \label{seccompare}
1831:
1832: We next tested the relative \oii\ and \hb\ calibrations
1833: against our primary UV calibration over the wider redshift
1834: range of the full mid-$z$ sample ($z<0.9$). In Figure~\ref{nuv_o2}a
1835: we plot the ratio of the \oii\ SFR to the UV SFR (both extinction
1836: corrected) versus galaxy
1837: mass. We show the lower redshift sources ($z=0.05-0.475$)
1838: with red diamonds and the higher redshift sources
1839: ($z=0.475-0.9$) with black squares, and we only show the
1840: results above the mass at which each redshift range is
1841: complete. The ratio changes slowly with both mass
1842: and redshift. The change is a 0.19~dex decline per dex
1843: increase in mass and a 0.04~dex increase between the low and
1844: high redshift ranges. This probably primarily reflects
1845: the higher metallicity in the more massive galaxies and the
1846: increase of metallicity to lower redshifts, which results
1847: in temperature changes in the H~II regions and
1848: the \oii\ line being stronger relative to the primary \ha\ line.
1849: Thus, if we were to use our \oii\ calibration, we would find
1850: it difficult to study the evolution of the SFRs as a function
1851: of redshift, mass, and metallicity.
1852:
1853: In contrast, as shown in Figure~\ref{nuv_o2}b (same symbols
1854: as in Fig.~\ref{nuv_o2}a), the ratio of the \hb\ SFR to the
1855: UV SFR (both extinction corrected) varies more slowly with
1856: galaxy mass and does not vary significantly with redshift.
1857: The change with mass is a 0.11~dex decline per dex increase
1858: in galaxy mass. Thus, \hb\ can also be used over the
1859: $z=0.05-0.9$ range where it can be measured.
1860:
1861:
1862: %
1863: % FIGURE 19
1864: %
1865: \begin{inlinefigure}
1866: \figurenum{19}
1867: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f19a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1868: \vskip -0.6cm
1869: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f19b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1870: \vskip -0.2cm
1871: \figcaption[]{
1872: (a) Ratio of the \oii\ SFR to the UV SFR (both
1873: extinction corrected) vs. galaxy mass.
1874: (b) Ratio of the \hb\ SFR to the UV SFR (both extinction
1875: corrected) vs. galaxy mass.
1876: Only sources with EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\ are
1877: included. The red diamonds (black squares) show the results for
1878: $z=0.05-0.475$ ($z=0.475-0.9$).
1879: We show the results only above the mass
1880: at which each redshift interval is complete.
1881: The least-square polynomial fits are shown with the dashed red
1882: (solid black) lines for the $z=0.05-0.475$ ($z=0.475-0.9$) sample.
1883: The one AGN based on its X-ray luminosities is enclosed in the
1884: large red diamond and is excluded from the fits.
1885: In (a) there is a significant gradient with mass and a
1886: small amount of evolution between the two redshift
1887: samples. In (b) there is a smaller change with galaxy mass
1888: and no significant evolution between the two redshift samples.
1889: \label{nuv_o2}
1890: }
1891: \end{inlinefigure}
1892:
1893:
1894: \subsection{Comparison with 24~$\mu$m}
1895: \label{sec24}
1896:
1897: Using the observed-frame 24~$\mu$m fluxes of the galaxies is
1898: a relatively poor way to determine the FIR luminosities and
1899: hence SFRs of the galaxies (e.g., Dale et al.\ 2005).
1900: However, because of the ready availability of 24~$\mu$m
1901: data from the {\em Spitzer\/} MIPS observations, this has
1902: become a common way of estimating SFRs, and nearly
1903: all of the papers that we will compare with use some
1904: version of this method to determine their SFRs. We
1905: therefore compare with 24~$\mu$m determined SFRs here.
1906:
1907: We compute the $24~\mu$m SFRs following the presciption given
1908: in Conselice07. We use the Dale \& Helou (2002)
1909: SEDs to convert the 24~$\mu$m flux to FIR luminosity following
1910: Figure~7 of Le Floc'h et al.\ (2005). We then use the
1911: Bell et al.\ (2005) relation between the reradiated SFR and the
1912: FIR luminosity (converted to the Salpeter IMF of the present paper),
1913: %
1914: \begin{equation}
1915: \log {\rm SFR} = -43.36 + \log L(FIR) \,,
1916: \end{equation}
1917: %
1918: to compute the SFRs.
1919:
1920: In Figure~\ref{mstar_f24} we compare the SFRs determined from
1921: the $24~\mu$m fluxes with the reradiated SFRs determined from
1922: the UV luminosities. (Here the reradiated SFR is the
1923: difference between the SFR computed after correcting for
1924: extinction and the SFR computed without an extinction
1925: correction.) In each redshift interval we only show the
1926: sources with sufficiently high SFRs that they will lie
1927: above the 80~$\mu$Jy sensitivity of the $24~\mu$m
1928: observations.
1929:
1930:
1931: %
1932: % FIGURE 20
1933: %
1934: \begin{inlinefigure}
1935: \figurenum{20}
1936: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f20.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
1937: \vskip -0.2cm
1938: \figcaption[]{
1939: Ratio of the 24~$\mu$m SFR to the reradiated UV
1940: SFR vs. the reradiated UV SFR. The sources are separated
1941: by redshift interval and are only shown if their SFR is
1942: above the SFR where the galaxies will be detected at the
1943: flux limit for the $24~\mu$m sample. Squares correspond to
1944: $z=0.05-0.475$ and are shown above 10~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$,
1945: diamonds correspond to $z=0.475-0.9$ and are shown above
1946: 30~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$, and triangles correspond to $z=0.9-1.5$
1947: and are shown above 100~M$_\odot$~yr$^{-1}$. Sources containing
1948: an AGN based on their X-ray luminosities are enclosed in
1949: larger red diamonds.
1950: \label{mstar_f24}
1951: }
1952: \end{inlinefigure}
1953:
1954:
1955: While there is a considerable spread in the individual SFR
1956: ratios, there is no clear dependence on redshift or on SFR.
1957: The normalization difference between the two methods is only
1958: $-0.08$~dex in the ensemble average, which is
1959: well within the uncertainties in the calibrations. The ensemble
1960: distribution is symmetric about the average with a $1\sigma$
1961: multiplicative spread of 0.29~dex. Thus, while there is
1962: a substantial spread in the individual galaxy determinations,
1963: the two methods give good agreement when applied to the galaxy
1964: population as a whole. Excluding AGNs based on their
1965: X-ray properties (i.e., sources enclosed in red diamonds in
1966: Figure~\ref{mstar_f24}) has no effect on the relative calibration.
1967:
1968:
1969: \section{Metallicities in the Emission Line Galaxies: The
1970: Low-$z$ Sample}
1971: \label{secha}
1972:
1973: We may construct a number of emission line diagnostics
1974: for the low-$z$ sample, since many of the spectra
1975: cover all of the emission lines from \oii\ to \sii.
1976: We therefore begin with a comparison of the
1977: metallicity-luminosity and metallicity-mass relations
1978: for these sources before proceeding to the mid-$z$
1979: sample in \S\ref{seco3}. We know that the \sii ratios
1980: place most of the galaxies in the low-density regime,
1981: but we do not use this information further.
1982:
1983:
1984: \subsection{[NII]/[OII] Diagnostic Ratio}
1985: \label{n2o2}
1986:
1987: Kewley \& Dopita (2002; hereafter KD02) advocate the use
1988: of the N2O2 $=f($\nii$)/f($\oii)
1989: diagnostic ratio whenever possible, since this ratio is quite
1990: insensitive to the ionization parameter $q$ and has a
1991: strong dependence on metallicity above $\log$(O/H)$+12\sim8.5$.
1992: However, the downside of this diagnostic ratio is that it compares
1993: two widely separated lines where the uncertainties in the
1994: flux calibration and extinction are more severe. Throughout this
1995: section we use the BC03 extinctions of \S\ref{secfit}.
1996:
1997:
1998: %
1999: % FIGURE 21
2000: %
2001: \begin{inlinefigure}
2002: \figurenum{21}
2003: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f21a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2004: \vskip -0.6cm
2005: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f21b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2006: \vskip -0.2cm
2007: \figcaption[]{
2008: Logarithmic (a) extinction uncorrected and (b) extinction
2009: corrected N2O2 diagnostic ratio vs. NIR luminosity
2010: for the sources in the low-$z$ sample with EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\
2011: and an \oii\ line that can be measured {\em (black squares)\/}.
2012: The sources with a flux ratio less than 0.015 are
2013: plotted at that value ($-1.82$ in the logarithm). In each panel
2014: the solid line shows the least-square polynomial fit
2015: to all the data, and the dashed line shows the least-square
2016: polynomial fit to only the data with NIR luminosities in the range
2017: $10^{43}-10^{44}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
2018: \label{noplot}
2019: }
2020: \end{inlinefigure}
2021:
2022:
2023: In Figure~\ref{noplot} we plot (a) extinction uncorrected and
2024: (b) extinction corrected N2O2 versus NIR luminosity
2025: for the 115 sources in the low-$z$ sample with
2026: EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\ and an \oii\ line that can be measured
2027: (it can be negative). These sources cover the redshift
2028: range $z=0.2-0.475$ and have a median redshift of $z=0.4$.
2029: We find a strong correlation between N2O2
2030: and NIR luminosity. For each panel
2031: in Figure~\ref{noplot} we use a solid line to show the
2032: least-square polynomial fit to all the data. In the faintest
2033: sources the $f($\nii) and $f($\oii) are weak, which results
2034: in larger scatter. For example, the extreme up-scattered
2035: point at low NIR luminosity in Figure~\ref{noplot} is a
2036: source with very weak $f($\nii) and $f($\oii). Thus, for each
2037: panel we also do a fit to the data in the restricted NIR
2038: luminosity range $10^{43}-10^{44}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$ to minimize
2039: these effects {\em (dashed line)\/}. The relation for the
2040: extinction corrected data restricted in luminosity is
2041: %
2042: \begin{equation}
2043: %\log({\rm N2O2}) = -1.31 + 0.97 \log(L_N) \,.
2044: \log({\rm N2O2}) = -0.94 + (0.63\pm0.08) \log(L_N) \,,
2045: \end{equation}
2046: %
2047: where $L_N$ is the NIR luminosity in units of
2048: $10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
2049:
2050:
2051: %
2052: % FIGURE 22
2053: %
2054: \begin{inlinefigure}
2055: \figurenum{22}
2056: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f22a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2057: \vskip -0.6cm
2058: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f22b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2059: \vskip -0.2cm
2060: \figcaption[]{
2061: Metallicity determined from the (a) extinction uncorrected and
2062: (b) extinction corrected
2063: N2O2 diagnostic ratio vs. galaxy mass for the sources in the low-$z$
2064: sample with EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\ and an \oii\ line that can be measured
2065: {\em (black squares)\/}. The conversion is for an ionization parameter
2066: $q=4\times 10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$, but the conversion is insensitive to
2067: this choice. In each panel the black solid line shows the
2068: least-square polynomial fit to all the data, and the red dotted
2069: ine shows the solar abundance.
2070: \label{n2o2mass}
2071: }
2072: \end{inlinefigure}
2073:
2074:
2075: We use the KD02 calibration (their Eq.~4 and Table~3) to convert
2076: our N2O2 values to metallicities, assuming an ionization
2077: parameter $q=2\times 10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$.
2078: This $q$ value is typical of the ionization parameters in our
2079: galaxies (see \S\ref{secq}). However, the present conversion
2080: is extremely insensitive to the choice of $q$.
2081: In Figure~\ref{n2o2mass} we plot metallicity determined from
2082: (a) extinction uncorrected and (b) extinction corrected
2083: N2O2 versus galaxy mass.
2084: For each panel we use a solid line to
2085: show the least-square polynomial fit to all the data. The
2086: metallicity-mass relation for the extinction corrected case is
2087: %
2088: \begin{equation}
2089: %12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.49 + 0.56 \log(L_N) \,.
2090: 12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.75 + (0.44\pm0.06) \log(M_{10}) \,,
2091: \label{eqnn202rel}
2092: \end{equation}
2093: %
2094: where $M_{10}$ is the galaxy mass in units of $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$.
2095: The extinction corrections flatten the slope
2096: (the unextinguished slope is $0.52\pm0.06$) since
2097: they reduce the N2O2 values more substantially in the high mass
2098: (high NIR luminosity) galaxies than they do in the lower
2099: mass galaxies.
2100:
2101:
2102: \subsection{Ionization Parameter}
2103: \label{secq}
2104:
2105: We can now combine the metallicities determined from
2106: extinction corrected N2O2 with extinction
2107: corrected O32 $=1.3\times f$(\oiii)$/f$(\oii)
2108: to determine the ionization parameters $q$. Here we do so
2109: using the KD02 parameterization of
2110: the O32 dependence on $q$ and metallicity. We plot
2111: $q$ versus NIR luminosity in Figure~\ref{no_q_plot}.
2112: The $q$ values lie in a surprisingly small range around
2113: a median value of $2.2\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$, with more
2114: than 77\% lying within a multiplicative factor of 2 of
2115: this value. There also appears to be little dependence
2116: of $q$ on NIR luminosity.
2117:
2118:
2119: %
2120: % FIGURE 23
2121: %
2122: \begin{inlinefigure}
2123: \figurenum{23}
2124: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f23.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2125: \vskip -0.2cm
2126: \figcaption[]{
2127: Ionization parameter obtained by combining the
2128: metallicity determined from the extinction corrected N2O2
2129: diagnostic ratio with the extinction corrected O32 diagnostic
2130: ratio vs. NIR luminosity {\em (black squares)\/}.
2131: The effects of the extinction correction
2132: are to slightly reduce the average ionization parameter and also
2133: to flatten the dependence on luminosity. Most of the sources
2134: lie in the $q=1-4\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$ range with
2135: an average value of $q=2.2\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$. The black
2136: solid line shows the least-square polynomial fit. The ionization
2137: parameter shows little dependence on NIR luminosity.
2138: \label{no_q_plot}
2139: }
2140: \end{inlinefigure}
2141:
2142:
2143: \subsection{[NII]/[H$\alpha$] Diagostic Ratio}
2144: \label{secnh}
2145:
2146: The tightly determined $q$ values mean that other
2147: diagnostic ratios, such as NH = $f$(\nii)$/f$(\ha), which
2148: normally have too much dependence on ionization parameter
2149: to be useful, actually work surprisingly well.
2150: Because \nii\ and \ha\ are extremely close in wavelength,
2151: NH is not dependent on the extinction corrections
2152: nor on the flux calibration methodology and thus provides
2153: a powerful check on the metallicities computed from
2154: N2O2. In Figure~\ref{nhlum} we show
2155: NH versus NIR luminosity. There is a
2156: strong correlation, which we fit over the NIR luminosity
2157: range $10^{43}-10^{44}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$ with the solid line.
2158:
2159: We next constructed the metallicity-mass relation from
2160: NH using Eq.~12 of Kobulnicky \& Kewley (2004;
2161: hereafter, KK04) and $q = 2\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$.
2162: (We note that the use of the coefficients given in Table~3 of
2163: KD02 for NH appears to give results that are inconsistent with
2164: Figure~7 of KD02 and Eq.~12 of KK04.)
2165: The metallicity-mass relation,
2166: %
2167: \begin{equation}
2168: 12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.85 + (0.36\pm0.04) \log(M_{10}) \,,
2169: \label{eqnnhorel}
2170: \end{equation}
2171: %
2172: is shown in Figure~\ref{nhomass} by the black solid line.
2173: Recomputing the data points using higher ($q=4\times 10^7$~cm~s$^{-1}$)
2174: or lower ($q=10^7$~cm~s$^{-1}$) ionization
2175: parameters and fitting the revised data points
2176: {\em (red dash-dotted lines)\/} does not substantially change
2177: the slope, but it does significantly change the normalization.
2178:
2179:
2180: %
2181: % FIGURE 24
2182: %
2183: \begin{inlinefigure}
2184: \figurenum{24}
2185: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f24.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2186: \vskip -0.2cm
2187: \figcaption[]{
2188: Logarithmic NH diagnostic ratio vs. NIR luminosity
2189: for the sources in the low-$z$ sample with EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\
2190: {\em (black squares)\/}.
2191: The black solid line shows the least-square polynomial
2192: fit to the data.
2193: \label{nhlum}
2194: }
2195: \end{inlinefigure}
2196:
2197:
2198: %
2199: % FIGURE 25
2200: %
2201: \begin{inlinefigure}
2202: \figurenum{25}
2203: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f25.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2204: \vskip -0.2cm
2205: \figcaption[]{
2206: Metallicity based on the NH
2207: diagnostic ratio vs. galaxy mass for the sources in the low-$z$ sample
2208: with EW(\ha$)>12$~\AA\ computed for an
2209: ionization parameter of $q = 2\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$
2210: {\em (black squares)\/}.
2211: The black solid line shows the least-square polynomial
2212: fit to the data. The red dash-dotted lines
2213: show the fits which would be obtained for
2214: $q = 4\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$ {\em (upper line)\/}
2215: and $q = 10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$ {\em (lower line)\/}.
2216: The cyan dashed line shows the metallicity-mass relation
2217: derived from the extinction corrected N2O2 diagnostic ratio
2218: (Eq.~\ref{eqnn202rel}). The red dotted horizontal line shows
2219: the solar metallicity.
2220: \label{nhomass}
2221: }
2222: \end{inlinefigure}
2223:
2224:
2225: In the figure we compare the metallicity-mass relation of
2226: Eq.~\ref{eqnnhorel} {\em (black solid line)\/}
2227: with the metallicity-mass relation of Eq.~\ref{eqnn202rel}
2228: {\em (cyan dashed line)\/} derived from N2O2.
2229: The agreement is reasonable given the sensitivity
2230: of the NH diagnostic to the ionization parameter.
2231: The mean metallicity in
2232: the $10^{10}$ to $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ range is
2233: 9.03 from NH and 8.99 from N2O2, which reassuringly shows that
2234: the metallicity and ionization parameter determinations are
2235: roughly self-consistent and that our treatment of the extinctions
2236: is plausible.
2237:
2238:
2239: \subsection{R23 Diagnostic Ratio}
2240: \label{secr23}
2241:
2242:
2243: %
2244: % FIGURE 26
2245: %
2246: \begin{inlinefigure}
2247: \figurenum{26}
2248: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f26a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2249: \vskip -0.6cm
2250: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f26b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2251: \vskip -0.2cm
2252: \figcaption[]{
2253: (a) Logarithmic R23 vs. metallicity for the McGaugh (1991)
2254: models corresponding to $\log({\rm O32})=-1$ {\em (red dashed)\/},
2255: $-0.25$ {\em (black solid)\/}, and 0.5 {\em (blue dotted)\/}.
2256: These values cover the range of our data.
2257: (b) Logarithmic extinction corrected R23 vs. logarithmic
2258: extinction corrected O32 for the sources in the low-$z$ sample with
2259: EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\ and detected \oii\ {\em (black squares)\/}.
2260: Tracks give the R23-O32 relations from McGaugh (1991):
2261: purple dashed lines show the relation on the low metallicity
2262: branch for three values of $12+\log({\rm O/H})$
2263: [8.0 {\em (lowest curve)\/}, 8.2, and 8.4 {\em (highest curve)\/}],
2264: and solid black lines show the relation on the high
2265: metallicity branch for five values of $12+\log({\rm O/H})$
2266: [8.4 {\em (highest curve)\/}, 8.6, 8.8, 9.0, and 9.1
2267: {\em (lowest curve)\/}]. On the high metallicity branch
2268: there is little dependence of R23 on O32.
2269: \label{r23_o32_ha}
2270: }
2271: \end{inlinefigure}
2272:
2273:
2274: The R23 diagnostic ratio
2275: [$1.3\times f($\oiii$~\lambda 5007)+f($\oii$~\lambda 3727)]/f($\hb)
2276: of Pagel et al.\ (1979) is one of the most frequently used
2277: metallicity diagnostics. It can be measured in
2278: our data out to $z=0.9$. However, it is unfortunately
2279: multivalued with both a low metallicity and a high metallicity
2280: branch. Thus, the same value of R23 can correspond to two
2281: substantially different metallicities. Moreover, R23
2282: is only weakly dependent on metallicity for
2283: $12+\log({\rm O/H})\lesssim 8.6$. We can see these traits in
2284: Figure~\ref{r23_o32_ha}.
2285: In Figure~\ref{r23_o32_ha}a we plot logarithmic R23 versus
2286: metallicity for the McGaugh (1991) models corresponding to
2287: $\log({\rm O32})=-1$ {\em (red dashed)\/},
2288: $-0.25$ {\em (black solid)\/}, and 0.5 {\em (blue dotted)\/}.
2289: These cover the range of ionization dependent O32 measurements
2290: from our data, as can be seen from Figure~\ref{r23_o32_ha}b
2291: where we plot logarithmic extinction corrected R23 versus
2292: logarithmic extinction corrected O32 for the 164 sources
2293: in the low-$z$ sample with EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\ and detected \oii\
2294: {\em (black squares)\/}.
2295: Here we overlay the models of McGaugh (1991) for the low
2296: metallicity branch {\em (purple dashed)\/} and
2297: the high metallicity branch {\em (black solid)\/} onto the
2298: data.
2299:
2300: Unfortunately, much of the data in Figure~\ref{r23_o32_ha}b
2301: lie near the peak of the
2302: R23 ratio [$\log$(R23) in the range 0.5 to 1], where R23
2303: is a relatively slowly varying function of the metallicity
2304: and where the metallicity could lie on either the upper or lower
2305: branches (see Fig.~\ref{r23_o32_ha}a). Fortunately, however,
2306: we can see from Figures~\ref{n2o2mass} and \ref{nhomass}
2307: (where the metallicities were computed from N2O2 and NH,
2308: respectively) that the galaxies in the
2309: low-$z$ sample with masses greater than
2310: $2\times10^{9}$~M$_\odot$ primarily lie on the high metallicity
2311: branch of the R23 diagnostic ratio [$12+\log({\rm O/H})>8.4$]
2312: (see also KK04). In \S\ref{seco3} we will assume that the higher redshift
2313: $(z>0.475)$ sources contained in the mid-$z$ sample also predominantly
2314: lie on the high metallicity branch, though if there is significant
2315: metallicity evolution, this assumption could break down.
2316:
2317: With most of the galaxies on the upper branch,
2318: the interpretation is considerably simplified, since
2319: on this branch there is very little dependence on O32.
2320: From the McGaugh (1991)
2321: models in Figure~\ref{r23_o32_ha}, we can see that
2322: at metallicities of $12+\log({\rm O/H})>8.6$, the
2323: R23 parameter is nearly ionization independent and has a
2324: steep dependence on metallicity. We can therefore
2325: make a simple investigation of the metal evolution by
2326: analyzing the dependence of R23 on the
2327: NIR luminosity without considering O32.
2328: In Figure~\ref{r23_nirlum_ha} we show the dependence of
2329: extinction corrected R23
2330: on NIR luminosity for the low-$z$ sample with EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\
2331: and detected \oii. The median R23 is relatively flat at lower
2332: luminosities and then drops at the higher luminosity end.
2333: The least-square polynomial fit is
2334: %
2335: \begin{equation}
2336: \log({\rm R23}) = 0.61 - (0.08\pm0.04) \log(L_N) \,.
2337: \end{equation}
2338:
2339:
2340: %
2341: % FIGURE 27
2342: %
2343: \begin{inlinefigure}
2344: \figurenum{27}
2345: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f27.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2346: \vskip -0.2cm
2347: \figcaption[]{
2348: The extinction corrected R23 diagnostic ratio
2349: vs. NIR luminosity for the low-$z$ sample with EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\
2350: and detected \oii\ {\em (black squares)\/}.
2351: The black solid line shows the least-square polynomial fit.
2352: \label{r23_nirlum_ha}
2353: }
2354: \end{inlinefigure}
2355:
2356:
2357: We can now also translate R23 and O32 to metallicity
2358: using the KK04 calibration (their Eq.~18),
2359: which is an average of the McGaugh (1991)
2360: and the KD02 R23 methods and is only valid for the upper branch.
2361: The dependence of the metallicity on the mass is then given by
2362: %
2363: \begin{equation}
2364: 12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.77 + (0.23\pm0.05) \log(M_{10}) \,,
2365: \label{eqr23rel}
2366: \end{equation}
2367: %
2368: which we show with a black solid line in Figure~\ref{r23_o_extinct_mass}.
2369: Alternatively, we can translate R23 alone to $12+\log({\rm O/H})$
2370: using Equation~1 of Tremonti et al.\ (2004;
2371: hereafter, Tremonti04), which is an analytical fit to their
2372: R23-metallicity relation and is also only valid for the upper branch.
2373: In this case we find for the dependence of the metallicity on the
2374: mass
2375: %
2376: \begin{equation}
2377: 12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.78 + (0.24\pm0.05) \log(M_{10}) \,,
2378: \label{eqr23rel_tr}
2379: \end{equation}
2380: %
2381: which has a very similar slope to Equation~\ref{eqr23rel}
2382: and, over the mass range $10^{10}$ to $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
2383: only differs in the intercept by 0.01~dex.
2384:
2385:
2386: %
2387: % FIGURE 28
2388: %
2389: \begin{inlinefigure}
2390: \figurenum{28}
2391: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f28.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2392: \vskip -0.2cm
2393: \figcaption[]{
2394: $12+\log({\rm O/H})$ computed from the extinction
2395: corrected R23 and O32 diagnostic ratios using the KK04
2396: calibration vs. galaxy mass for the low-$z$ sample with
2397: EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\ and detected \oii\ {\em (black squares)\/}.
2398: The black solid line shows the least-square polynomial fit
2399: (Eq.~\ref{eqr23rel}), which is flatter than the fits to the
2400: metallicities derived from the extinction corrected N2O2
2401: diagnostic ratio (Eq.~\ref{eqnn202rel}; {\em cyan dotted line\/})
2402: and the NH diagnostic ratio (Eq.~\ref{eqnnhorel};
2403: {\em red dashed line\/}).
2404: The red dotted line shows the solar abundance.
2405: \label{r23_o_extinct_mass}
2406: }
2407: \end{inlinefigure}
2408:
2409:
2410: In Figure~\ref{r23_o_extinct_mass} we compare the fit to the
2411: metallicities derived from R23 and O32 using the KK04
2412: calibration {\em (black solid line)\/}
2413: with the fits to the metallicities derived from N202
2414: {\em (cyan dotted line)\/} and NH {\em (red dashed line)\/}.
2415: While the metallicities are close, using R23 gives a shallower
2416: slope, as can be seen quantitatively by comparing Equation~\ref{eqr23rel}
2417: with Equations~\ref{eqnn202rel} and \ref{eqnnhorel}. The
2418: shallower slope is most likely a consequence of
2419: our assumption that the bulk of the sources lie on the
2420: high metallicity branch of R23. This assumption breaks
2421: down at the low mass end, causing some of the low
2422: metallicity branch points to be assigned artificially high
2423: metallicities.
2424:
2425: We also calculated the values of the ionization parameter $q$
2426: from R23 and O32 using the new parameterizations of
2427: KK04 (their Eqs.~13 and 17) for the KD02 models.
2428: (Note that KK04 did
2429: not give a parameterization for $q$ for their averaged KD02
2430: and M91 R23 method, which we used to compute the metallicities
2431: in Figure~\ref{r23_o_extinct_mass}. However, since $q$ is not
2432: particularly sensitive to metallicity, the fact that we are
2433: using the updated KD02 parameterizations here to calculate the
2434: $q$ values should not be important.)
2435: These $q$ values are very similar to those derived from N2O2.
2436: The median $q=2.3\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$, and 80\%
2437: of the sample lies between $q=1.1\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$
2438: and $q=4.4\times10^{7}$~cm~s$^{-1}$.
2439:
2440:
2441: \section{Metallicities in the Emission Line Galaxies:
2442: The [OIII] Sample}
2443: \label{seco3}
2444:
2445: At higher redshifts only the R23 diagnostic ratio can be computed
2446: from the optical spectra. As can be seen from
2447: Figure~\ref{r23_o32_ha} (and as we discussed in \S\ref{secr23}),
2448: this results in some ambiguities in calculating the metallicities
2449: since R23 is relatively insensitive to
2450: metallicity at sub-solar values, and the translation from R23
2451: to metallicity requires assumptions about which branch
2452: of the R23 relation the metallicity is on. We therefore first
2453: analyze the raw R23 evolution without making any translation
2454: to metallicity.
2455:
2456: In Figure~\ref{r23_bylum} we show the dependence of R23 on
2457: redshift for the mid-$z$ sample with EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\ and
2458: detected \oii. We have divided the sample into
2459: three NIR luminosity intervals:
2460: (a) $(5-20)\times 10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$;
2461: (b) $(2-5)\times 10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$;
2462: and (c) $(0.8-2)\times 10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
2463: The purple solid line shows the least-square polynomial
2464: fit to the data in (c). This same fit is also shown as a
2465: purple line in (a) and (b) for comparison with the fit to the
2466: data in each of those intervals {\em (black solid line)\/}.
2467: In all three luminosity intervals we see a similar evolution
2468: with redshift, with R23 increasing by about $0.2-0.3$~dex
2469: between $z=0.3$ and $z=0.9$. The parallel evolution of
2470: the three luminosity intervals indicates that the shape of
2471: the metallicity-mass relation does not evolve rapidly with
2472: redshift over this redshift range. This result is not changed
2473: if we exclude the strong redshift filament seen at $z=0.85$.
2474: Since R23 decreases with increasing metallicity on the high
2475: metallicity branch (see Fig.~\ref{r23_o32_ha}a),
2476: we also see from Figure~\ref{r23_bylum} that high
2477: luminosity galaxies have higher metallicities than lower
2478: luminosity galaxies at all redshifts. Moreover, in a given
2479: luminosity interval, the metallicity is increasing with decreasing
2480: redshift. The dependence of the metallicity on redshift is
2481: sufficiently strong that high luminosity galaxies at high
2482: redshifts have comparable metallicities to low luminosity
2483: galaxies at lower redshifts.
2484:
2485: We may now compute the metallicity evolution with redshift
2486: and luminosity more directly at the expense of both assuming
2487: that the metallicity is on the upper branch of the R23
2488: relation and adopting a specific calibration to metallicity.
2489: In Figure~\ref{metal}
2490: we show $12+\log({\rm O/H})$ computed from R23 and O32 in the
2491: same manner as in \S\ref{secr23} using the KK04 calibration.
2492: The points are separated into the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$
2493: {\em (red diamonds)\/} and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}
2494: with median redshifts of 0.44 and 0.75. Even over this relatively
2495: narrow redshift range the average metallicity has dropped by about
2496: 0.13~dex. Both distributions show an upper envelope of
2497: $12+\log({\rm O/H})\sim 9.1$. The spread to lower metallicities
2498: at the higher redshifts should not be taken seriously as it is
2499: a consequence of applying the high metallicity branch equation
2500: to galaxies that are on the low metallicity branch.
2501: We find the least-square polynomial fit to the metallicities,
2502: NIR luminosities, and $(1+z)$ values for all the galaxies together
2503: to be
2504: %
2505: \begin{equation}
2506: 12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.95 +0.18 \log(L_N) - 1.52 \log(1+z) \,,
2507: \label{eqcombinedfit}
2508: \end{equation}
2509: %
2510: which we show in Figure~\ref{metal} calculated at the median redshifts
2511: of $0.44$ {\em (red solid)\/} and $0.75$ {\em (black solid)\/},
2512: respectively. We also show the least-square polynomial fits to the
2513: metallicities and NIR luminosities for $z=0.05-0.475$
2514: {\em (red dashed)\/} and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black dashed)\/}.
2515:
2516:
2517: %
2518: % FIGURE 29
2519: %
2520: \begin{inlinefigure}
2521: \figurenum{29}
2522: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f29a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2523: \vskip -0.6cm
2524: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f29b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2525: \vskip -0.6cm
2526: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f29c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2527: \vskip -0.2cm
2528: \figcaption[]{
2529: Logarithmic extinction corrected R23 vs. redshift for
2530: the mid-$z$ sample with EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA\ and detected \oii\
2531: for three NIR luminosity ranges:
2532: (a) $(5-20)\times10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$,
2533: (b) $(2-5)\times10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$,
2534: and (c) $(0.8-2)\times10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
2535: Each panel is marked with the luminosity range
2536: in units of $10^{43}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.
2537: In (a) and (b) the black solid line shows the least-square
2538: polynomial fit to $\log($R23) vs. $\log(1+z)$. In (a), (b),
2539: and (c) the purple solid line shows the least-square polynomial
2540: fit to the data in (c).
2541: \label{r23_bylum}
2542: }
2543: \end{inlinefigure}
2544:
2545:
2546: Using the KK04 calibration, we find the least-square polynomial
2547: fit to the metallicities and masses for $z=0.475-0.9$ to be
2548: %
2549: \begin{equation}
2550: 12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.72 + (0.13\pm0.06) \log M_{10} \,.
2551: \label{eqr23hizrel}
2552: \end{equation}
2553: %
2554: Using the Tremonti04 calibration, we find
2555: %
2556: \begin{equation}
2557: 12+\log({\rm O/H}) = 8.70 + (0.17\pm0.05) \log M_{10} \,.
2558: \label{eqr23hizrel_tr}
2559: \end{equation}
2560: %
2561: These two fits only differ by an average of
2562: 0.02~dex over the $10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ range. Moreover,
2563: within the wide errors, the slopes of both fits are
2564: consistent with the slopes of the fits given in
2565: Equations~\ref{eqr23rel} and \ref{eqr23rel_tr},
2566: which were made to the low-$z$ sample alone over the wider mass
2567: range using the KK04 and Tremonti04 calibrations, respectively.
2568: To show the similarity of the slopes for the two redshift intervals,
2569: in Figure~\ref{hiz_r23_o_extinct_mass} we plot
2570: Equations~\ref{eqr23rel} {\em (red line)\/} and \ref{eqr23hizrel}
2571: {\em (black line)\/} on top of the $z=0.05-0.475$
2572: {\em (red diamonds)\/} and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}
2573: data restricted to masses above $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$, where the
2574: mid-$z$ sample is complete.
2575:
2576:
2577: %
2578: % FIGURE 30
2579: %
2580: \begin{inlinefigure}
2581: \figurenum{30}
2582: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f30.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2583: \vskip -0.2cm
2584: \figcaption[]{
2585: Metallicity vs. NIR luminosity for the mid-$z$ sample
2586: computed from the extinction corrected R23 and O32 diagnostic ratios
2587: using the KK04 calibration. The red diamonds show the galaxies with
2588: $z=0.05-0.475$. The black squares show the galaxies with $z=0.475-0.9$.
2589: Both have an upper limit of about 9.1 for $12+\log({\rm O/H})$. However,
2590: the mean metallicity has dropped by about 0.13~dex.
2591: The solid lines show the least-square polynomial fit to the
2592: metallicities, NIR luminosities, and $(1+z)$ values for all the
2593: galaxies together (Eq.~\ref{eqcombinedfit}) computed at the
2594: median redshifts {\em (red for 0.44; black for 0.75)\/}. The dashed
2595: lines show the least-square polynomial fits to the metallicities and
2596: NIR luminosities for $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red)\/}
2597: and $z=0.495-0.9$ {\em (black)\/}.
2598: \label{metal}
2599: }
2600: \end{inlinefigure}
2601:
2602:
2603: %
2604: % FIGURE 31
2605: %
2606: \begin{inlinefigure}
2607: \figurenum{31}
2608: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f31.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2609: \vskip -0.2cm
2610: \figcaption[]{
2611: Metallicity vs. mass for the mid-$z$ sample computed
2612: from the extinction corrected R23 and O32 diagnostic ratios using
2613: the KK04 calibration. The red diamonds show the galaxies with
2614: $z=0.05-0.475$.
2615: The black squares show the galaxies with $z=0.475-0.9$.
2616: The solid lines show the least-square polynomial fits to
2617: each redshift interval from Eq.~\ref{eqr23rel} {\em (red line)\/}
2618: and Eq.~\ref{eqr23hizrel} {\em (black line)\/}.
2619: \label{hiz_r23_o_extinct_mass}
2620: }
2621: \end{inlinefigure}
2622:
2623:
2624: We can more clearly compare the metallicities
2625: in the low-$z$ and mid-$z$ samples in histogram form.
2626: In Figure~\ref{r23_o_hist} we show the distribution of metallicities
2627: computed using the KK04 calibration for the galaxies in the
2628: $10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ range. The $z=0.475-0.9$ ($z=0.05-0.475$)
2629: interval is shown in black (red). The median metallicity in
2630: the mid-$z$ (low-$z$) interval is $8.79\pm0.03$ ($8.92\pm0.04$),
2631: where the errors give the 68\% confidence range calculated
2632: using the median sign method. The increase of 0.13~dex in metallicity
2633: from median redshift $0.75$ to median redshift $0.44$ is
2634: consistent with that found from the fits to the larger luminosity
2635: selected sample in Equation~\ref{eqcombinedfit}.
2636:
2637:
2638: %
2639: % FIGURE 32
2640: %
2641: \begin{inlinefigure}
2642: \figurenum{32}
2643: \vskip -0.2cm
2644: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f32.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2645: \figcaption[]{
2646: Distribution of metallicities computed from
2647: the extinction corrected R23 and O32 diagnostic ratios
2648: using the KK04 calibration for the galaxies in the
2649: mid-$z$ sample with masses $10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$.
2650: The black (red) histogram shows the distribution
2651: of galaxies between $z=0.475-0.9$ ($z=0.05-0.475$).
2652: \label{r23_o_hist}
2653: }
2654: \end{inlinefigure}
2655:
2656:
2657: \section{Missing Galaxies in the Metals Analysis}
2658: \label{secabs}
2659:
2660: The metals analysis of \S\ref{secha} and \S\ref{seco3}
2661: only includes galaxies with strong emission lines, and this
2662: selection is a strong function of galaxy mass. In
2663: Figure~\ref{emission_fraction} we show the fraction of
2664: galaxies with strong enough emission lines to have been
2665: included in that analysis versus logarithmic mass for
2666: $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red diamonds)\/} and $z=0.475-0.9$
2667: {\em (black squares)\/}. The fraction
2668: decreases smoothly with increasing logarithmic mass,
2669: falling to zero above $\sim10^{11}~$M$_\odot$, depending
2670: on the redshift interval.
2671:
2672: We also show the relative contributions to the mass density
2673: versus logarithmic mass from all the galaxies in the redshift
2674: intervals $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red histogram)\/} and
2675: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black histogram)\/}. Combining this
2676: distribution with the fraction of galaxies in the strong emission
2677: line sample, we find that only about 20\%$-30$\% of the
2678: total galaxy mass density is included in the strong emission line
2679: metallicity analysis.
2680: It is therefore important to understand
2681: the evolution of the remaining galaxies if we are to understand
2682: fully the metallicity-mass evolution.
2683:
2684: We can divide the galaxies excluded from the strong emission
2685: line metallicity analysis into two categories: apparently
2686: passive galaxies with no clear signs of ongoing
2687: star formation, and weakly active galaxies where
2688: the source has EW(\hb$)<4$~\AA\ and either EW(\oii$)>5$~\AA\
2689: or a $24~\mu$m detection. In Figure~\ref{emission_fraction}
2690: we show the fraction of non-strong emission
2691: line galaxies in the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red)\/}
2692: and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black)\/} that are weakly active
2693: {\em (solid curves)\/}. This fraction is quite
2694: substantial. In fact, there are very few completely
2695: passive galaxies below $\sim3\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
2696: over the entire $z=0.05-0.9$ redshift range. However,
2697: $\sim40$\% of the total galaxy mass density
2698: is contained in the passive population, and the majority
2699: of the massive galaxies ($>10^{11}$~M$_\odot$) fall into
2700: this category.
2701:
2702:
2703: %
2704: % FIGURE 33
2705: %
2706: \begin{inlinefigure}
2707: \figurenum{33}
2708: \vskip -0.2cm
2709: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f33.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2710: \figcaption[]{
2711: Fraction of galaxies in the redshift intervals
2712: $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red diamonds)\/} and $z=0.475-0.9$
2713: {\em (black squares)\/} that are included in the strong emission
2714: line metallicity analysis of \S\ref{secha} and \S\ref{seco3}
2715: vs. galaxy mass. The red (black) histogram shows the fraction of
2716: the mass density in each bin that comes from the galaxies in the
2717: redshift interval $z=0.05-0.475$
2718: ($z=0.475-0.9$). The solid curves show the fraction of
2719: non-strong emission line galaxies
2720: in the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red)\/}
2721: and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black)\/} that are weakly active.
2722: In all cases we only show the fractions where there are
2723: more than 4 objects in the bin.
2724: \label{emission_fraction}
2725: }
2726: \end{inlinefigure}
2727:
2728:
2729: \subsection{Passive Galaxies}
2730:
2731: We formed stacked spectra of the passive galaxies in
2732: each of the two redshift intervals by normalizing the
2733: flux calibrated spectra in the $3500-5000$~\AA\ range and
2734: then averaging the spectra. Regions around the atmospheric
2735: bands and the chip boundaries in the DEIMOS instrument
2736: were blanked out in the individual spectra.
2737:
2738: In Figure~\ref{stack_passive}a we show the stacked spectrum
2739: {\em (black)\/} for the redshift interval $z=0.475-0.9$.
2740: We fitted the spectrum by assuming a range of metallicities
2741: and then found the best-fit BC03 model for each metallicity.
2742: Prior to measuring the $\chi^2$ we removed slight shape differences
2743: by fitting a second-order polynomial to the ratio of the stacked
2744: spectrum to the model spectrum. Unfortunately, even in the
2745: stacked spectrum there is almost no distinction between fits
2746: with very different metallicities because of the metallicity-age
2747: degeneracy. In the case of the $z=0.475-0.9$ stacked spectrum,
2748: the best-fit solar metallicity model is a single burst
2749: with an age of 1.9~Gyr {\em (upper red spectrum)\/}. It closely
2750: matches the stacked spectrum. However, in Figure~\ref{stack_passive}b
2751: we show the best-fit $2.5\times$ solar metallicity model,
2752: which is a single burst with an age of 1.0~Gyr {\em (upper red spectrum)\/}.
2753: This fit is indistinguishable from the solar metallicity fit.
2754: In each panel we also show the residual {\em (lower red spectrum)\/}
2755: between the best-fit model and the stacked spectrum.
2756: There is very weak \oii\ emission visible in the stacked spectrum
2757: but no \hb\ or \oiii, so there is no possibility of using the
2758: gaseous emission to estimate the metallicity.
2759:
2760:
2761: %
2762: % FIGURE 34
2763: %
2764: \begin{inlinefigure}
2765: \figurenum{34}
2766: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f34a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2767: \vskip -1.4cm
2768: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f34b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2769: \vskip -0.2cm
2770: \figcaption[]{
2771: Stacked spectrum for passive galaxies in the
2772: redshift interval $z=0.475-0.9$ formed by normalizing the individual
2773: extinction corrected spectra and averaging them {\em (black in each panel)\/}.
2774: The upper red spectrum in (a) is the best-fit BC03 solar metallicity
2775: model, which is a single burst with an age of 1.9~Gyr. In (b) the
2776: upper red spectrum is the best-fit BC03 $2.5\times$ solar metallicity
2777: model, which is a single burst with an age of 1.0~Gyr.
2778: The overall shapes are matched by applying a second-order
2779: polynomial over the wavelength range. The lower red spectrum
2780: shows the residual difference between the data and the fit.
2781: The fits are both excellent and essentially indistinguishable.
2782: \label{stack_passive}
2783: }
2784: \end{inlinefigure}
2785:
2786:
2787: \subsection{Weakly Active Galaxies}
2788:
2789: In contrast to the stacked spectrum for the
2790: passive galaxies, the stacked spectrum for the weakly active
2791: galaxies clearly shows gaseous emission lines
2792: (see Fig.~\ref{stack_weak}b). In this section we will derive
2793: metallicities from the stacked spectrum for the weakly active
2794: galaxies. However, to assess how well we are able to do this,
2795: we will also derive metallicities from the stacked
2796: spectrum for the strong emission line galaxies and compare
2797: with the metallicities that we obtained previously for the
2798: individual sources.
2799:
2800: In Figure~\ref{stack_weak}a we show the stacked spectrum
2801: {\em (black)\/} for the strong emission line galaxies
2802: [EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA] in the redshift interval $z=0.475-0.9$
2803: and over the mass interval $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$. We
2804: overlay the best-fit BC03 solar metallicity
2805: model, which is exponentially declining with $\tau=5$~Gyr
2806: and an age of 2.8~Gyr {\em (upper red)\/}.
2807: (Note again that it does not matter what metallicity we adopt,
2808: as it would only affect the age.)
2809: We also show the residual spectrum {\em (lower red)\/}
2810: after subtracting the best-fit model from the stacked spectrum.
2811:
2812: In Figure~\ref{stack_weak}b we show the stacked spectrum
2813: {\em (black)\/} for the weakly active galaxies in the same
2814: redshift interval and over the same mass interval.
2815: We overlay the best-fit BC03 solar metallicity model, which is
2816: exponentially declining with $\tau=5$~Gyr and an age of 7.5~Gyr
2817: {\em (upper red)\/}. We again also show the residual
2818: spectrum {\em (lower red)\/}.
2819:
2820:
2821: %
2822: % FIGURE 35
2823: %
2824: \begin{inlinefigure}
2825: \figurenum{35}
2826: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f35a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2827: \vskip -1.3cm
2828: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f35b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2829: \vskip -1.3cm
2830: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f35c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2831: \figcaption[]{
2832: Stacked spectra for galaxies with $z=0.475-0.9$
2833: and masses $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ formed by normalizing
2834: the individual extinction corrected spectra and averaging
2835: them. (a) Strong emission line galaxies with EW(\hb$)>4$~\AA,
2836: all of which were included in the individual metallicity analysis
2837: {\em (black)\/}. The upper red spectrum is the best-fit BC03
2838: solar metallicity model, which is exponentially declining
2839: with $\tau=5$~Gyr and has an age of 2.8~Gyr.
2840: (b) Weakly active galaxies with EW(\hb$)<4$~\AA\
2841: and either EW(\oii$)>5$~\AA\ or a $24~\mu$m detection.
2842: The upper red spectrum is the best-fit BC03 solar metallicity
2843: model, which is exponentially declining with $\tau=5$~Gyr and
2844: has an age of 7.5~Gyr. In (a) and (b) the lower red spectrum
2845: shows the residual difference between the data and the fit.
2846: (c) A direct comparison of the residual spectra from
2847: (a) {\em (red)\/} and (b) {\em (displaced black)\/}.
2848: Both have been normalized to unity in the \hb\ line
2849: so that the strengths of the other lines may be directly
2850: compared. The measured R23 is 3.24 for the strong
2851: emission line galaxies and 5.62 for the weakly active galaxies.
2852: \label{stack_weak}
2853: }
2854: \end{inlinefigure}
2855:
2856:
2857: In Figure~\ref{stack_weak}c we show the two residual
2858: spectra normalized to unity in the \hb\ line so that the
2859: strengths of the other lines may be directly compared.
2860:
2861: We can make a rough analysis of the metallicities in the
2862: stacked spectra using the R23 method.
2863: The high degree of homogeneity we saw earlier
2864: in the ionization parameters and in the metallicities at a
2865: given mass gives us some confidence that this procedure may
2866: work reasonably well in analyzing the ensemble of galaxies.
2867: The assumptions are
2868: similar to those we made to determine the metallicities
2869: for the individual galaxies: namely, that the metallicity
2870: determined from the composite spectrum of H~II regions in the galaxy
2871: roughly matches the average metallicity that would be derived
2872: from an independent analysis of the individual H~II regions
2873: in the galaxy. In general this type of averaging results
2874: in a small underestimate (by about 0.1~dex) in the derived
2875: oxygen abundance for the individual galaxies
2876: (Kobulnicky et al.\ 1999).
2877:
2878: In Figure~\ref{active_stack_o} we compare the metallicities
2879: derived from the stacked spectrum for the strong emission line
2880: galaxies (using the Tremonti04 calibration) {\em (solid symbols)\/}
2881: with the best fits to the metallicities of the individual galaxies
2882: {\em (solid lines)\/} from Equations~\ref{eqr23rel_tr} and
2883: \ref{eqr23hizrel_tr} (which also use the Tremonti04 calibration).
2884: The red (black) color denotes the $z=0.05-0.475$ ($z=0.475-0.9$) interval.
2885: We use the Tremonti04 calibration so that we may compare the
2886: results directly with the local measurements in \S\ref{secdisc}.
2887: The lower redshift points are in good agreement with the fit to the
2888: individual measurements, while the higher redshift points are about
2889: 0.1~dex higher on average. The open red (black) symbols show the
2890: measurements from the weakly active galaxies for the redshift
2891: interval $z=0.05-0.475$ ($z=0.475-0.9$).
2892: These show substantial scatter, but the measurements are
2893: in broad agreement with the strong emission line galaxies.
2894: We will assume in \S\ref{secdisc} that the weakly active galaxies
2895: parallel the evolution of the strong emission line galaxies.
2896:
2897:
2898: %
2899: % FIGURE 36
2900: %
2901: \begin{inlinefigure}
2902: \figurenum{36}
2903: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f36.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
2904: \vskip -0.2cm
2905: \figcaption[]{
2906: Metallicities derived from either the stacked spectrum
2907: for the strong emission line galaxies {\em (solid symbols)\/} or
2908: the stacked spectrum for the weakly active galaxies
2909: {\em (open symbols)\/} vs. logarithmic galaxy mass
2910: for the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red)\/}
2911: and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black)\/}. All metallicities were
2912: computed with the Tremonti04 calibration. The solid lines show
2913: the fits to the individual galaxies in the strong
2914: emission line sample using the Tremonti04 calibration
2915: [Eq.~\ref{eqr23rel_tr} {\em (red)\/} and
2916: Eq.~\ref{eqr23hizrel_tr} {\em (black)\/}].
2917: \label{active_stack_o}
2918: }
2919: \end{inlinefigure}
2920:
2921:
2922: \section{Discussion}
2923: \label{secdisc}
2924:
2925: We now bring together the results from the previous sections
2926: to form an integrated picture of galactic stellar mass assembly,
2927: star formation, and metallicity evolution. In
2928: \S\ref{secgsmf} and \S\ref{secmassassembly} we measure the
2929: galactic stellar mass functions and the growth of the stellar
2930: mass densities with redshift. In \S\ref{secsfh} we measure
2931: the star formation rate densities as a function of redshift and
2932: galaxy mass. In \S\ref{secgrowth} we compute the expected
2933: formed stellar mass density growth rates produced by star formation
2934: and show that they match those measured from the formed stellar mass
2935: functions if the IMF is slightly increased from the Salpeter
2936: IMF at intermediate masses ($\sim10~$M$_\odot$). In
2937: \S\ref{secstarspec} we determine the instantaneous specific star
2938: formation rates, which give a quantitative description
2939: of the range of behaviors in the galaxies. We show that only
2940: galaxies below about $10^{11}~$M$_\odot$ are growing substantially
2941: over $z=0.05-1.5$. In \S\ref{seccolor} we analyze the distributions of
2942: galaxy colors, equivalent widths, and 4000~\AA\ break strengths and
2943: find that star formation in all but the lowest mass galaxies in
2944: our sample is occurring in bursts with characteristic time intervals
2945: of about $4\times10^9$~yr. We also find that most of the growth in
2946: the mass density
2947: is in the red sequence galaxies, whether these are chosen
2948: by color or from the rest-frame EW(\oii). In \S\ref{secmassmorph}
2949: we show that as the redshift decreases, the galaxy
2950: types smoothly migrate from spirals to S0s and elliptical
2951: galaxies at all masses. The mass
2952: build-up is primarily in the E/S0 galaxies, which are also
2953: the red sequence galaxies, and there is little change
2954: in the galactic stellar mass function of the spirals.
2955: In \S\ref{secenv} we find that although the masses are a
2956: strongly increasing function of environment, there is little
2957: redshift dependence in this relation. Unlike local results,
2958: the fraction of galaxies in the red sequence shows little
2959: environmental dependence and appears to depend primarily on
2960: the galaxy mass. Finally, in \S\ref{secmetev} we compare the
2961: metallicity evolution in the present sample with local and
2962: high-redshift metallicity measurements. In \S\ref{secgasmass}
2963: we combine the measured increases in metallicity with redshift
2964: with the metals returned from the measured SFRs to make a crude
2965: estimate of the galaxy gas mass reservoir, and we compare this
2966: to the stellar mass density as a function of galaxy mass.
2967:
2968:
2969: \subsection{Galactic Stellar Mass Functions}
2970: \label{secgsmf}
2971:
2972: In Figure~\ref{fig_mfun} we show the galactic stellar
2973: mass functions {\em (black squares)\/} in three redshift intervals
2974: [(a) $z=0.9-1.5$, (b) $z=0.475-0.9$, and (c) $z=0.05-0.475$]
2975: computed using the $1/V$ methodology
2976: (Felten 1976) and compared with the local mass function of
2977: Cole01 adjusted to the present cosmology {\em (purple crosses)\/}.
2978: Both the Cole01 and our own mass functions are
2979: computed with the Salpeter IMF assumed throughout.
2980:
2981: For each mass function we have computed the errors in two
2982: ways. First, we assigned $1\sigma$ errors based on the number
2983: of sources in each bin {\em (red error bars)\/}.
2984: These errors dominate at the high-mass end where there
2985: are small numbers of sources in each bin. Second, we
2986: estimated the effect of cosmic variance in a simple empirical way.
2987: In each redshift interval we eliminated the strongest redshift
2988: sheet from the sample. For example, in the $z=0.475-0.9$
2989: redshift interval we removed all of the sources lying
2990: between $z=0.845$ and $z=0.86$ (see Figure~\ref{mass_byz}).
2991: Typically the strongest single sheet will contain about
2992: 10\%$-20$\% of the galaxies in the redshift interval.
2993: We then recomputed the mass function corresponding to the
2994: new volume and used the difference as an error estimate
2995: ({\em black error bars\/}). These error estimates dominate
2996: at the low-mass end. The internal error estimate from this
2997: method are similar in size to the analytic estimates of
2998: Somerville et al. 2004 which would give systematic error
2999: of 0.25, 0.15 and 0.1 dex in the $z=0.05-0.475$, $z=0.475-0.9$
3000: and $z=0.9-1.5$ redshift intervals.
3001:
3002:
3003: %
3004: % FIGURE 37
3005: %
3006: \begin{inlinefigure}
3007: \figurenum{37}
3008: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f37a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3009: \vskip -0.6cm
3010: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f37b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3011: \vskip -0.6cm
3012: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f37c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3013: \vskip -0.2cm
3014: \figcaption[]{
3015: Galactic stellar mass functions in the redshift
3016: intervals (a) $z=0.9-1.5$, (b) $z=0.475-0.9$, and
3017: (c) $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (black squares)\/}.
3018: The red error bars are $1\sigma$, based on the
3019: number of sources in each bin, while the black error
3020: bars are derived from excluding the strongest
3021: velocity sheet in each redshift interval (see text for details).
3022: The purple crosses and associated $1\sigma$ error bars
3023: are the same in all three redshift intervals and show the
3024: local mass function of Cole01 for the Salpeter
3025: IMF adjusted to the present cosmology. The cyan curves
3026: show the best-fit Schechter functions obtained using
3027: the Sandage et al.\ (1979) maximum likelihood method.
3028: \label{fig_mfun}
3029: }
3030: \end{inlinefigure}
3031:
3032:
3033: In order to provide parametric fits to the data, we have
3034: assumed a Schechter (1976) form,
3035: %
3036: \begin{equation}
3037: \phi(M) = \phi_{\star}\Biggl({M\over {M_{\star}(z)}}\Biggr)^{\alpha(z)}
3038: {e^{-M/{M_{\star}(z)}}\over M_{\star}(z)} \,,
3039: \label{eqnshec}
3040: \end{equation}
3041: %
3042: for the mass function,
3043: where $\phi(M)$ is the number of galaxies per unit mass per Mpc$^{3}$
3044: at mass $M$. We used the Sandage et al.\ (1979) maximum likelihood
3045: method to determine the power-law index $\alpha(z)$ and the characteristic mass
3046: $M_\star(z)$ for each of the three redshift intervals. The best-fit
3047: functions are shown in Figure~\ref{fig_mfun} {\em (cyan curves)\/},
3048: and the derived $\alpha$ and $M_\star$ for each redshift
3049: interval are shown in Figure~\ref{mlf_all} together with the
3050: 68\% and 95\% confidence error ellipses.
3051: We obtained the normalizations $\phi_\star(z)$ by normalizing
3052: to the number of objects in each redshift interval. We
3053: used our variance estimates (which dominate the error budget)
3054: in computing the error on this quantity. We summarize the
3055: maximum likelihood fits in each redshift interval in
3056: Table~\ref{sty_fits}, together with the 68\% confidence ranges.
3057:
3058:
3059: %
3060: % FIGURE 38
3061: %
3062: \begin{inlinefigure}
3063: \figurenum{38}
3064: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f38.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3065: \vskip -0.2cm
3066: \figcaption[]{
3067: Sandage et al.\ (1979) fits to $\alpha(z)$ and $M_\star(z)$ for
3068: the three redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red diamond)\/},
3069: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black square)\/}, and $z=0.9-1.5$
3070: {\em (blue triangle)\/}. In each case the inner contour
3071: shows the 68\% confidence range and the outer contour shows
3072: the 95\% confidence range for the symbol of the same color.
3073: \label{mlf_all}
3074: }
3075: \end{inlinefigure}
3076:
3077:
3078: A number of analyses of galactic stellar mass functions
3079: have recently been undertaken (see references in \S\ref{secintro}),
3080: and our results are broadly consistent. We may make
3081: the most straightforward comparison with Fontana et al.\ (2006;
3082: hereafter Fontana06), who analyze their data in a very similar
3083: way and who also use the Salpeter IMF. While their GOODS-MUSIC
3084: sample relies heavily on photometric redshifts, in other respects
3085: it is comparable to the present sample. Their Figure~4 bears a
3086: striking resemblence to our Figure~\ref{fig_mfun}.
3087: Conselice07 use a much larger field size with almost
3088: twenty times as many objects and also draw a similar conclusion.
3089: The agreement between fields is reassuring
3090: that our results are robust and are not being dominated by cosmic
3091: variance.
3092:
3093: The effects of downsizing can be clearly seen in both
3094: Fontana06's Figure~4 and our Figure~\ref{fig_mfun}: the galaxy
3095: number densities at the low-mass
3096: end are still rising down to the lowest redshift interval, while
3097: the number densities at the high-mass end ($>10^{11}$~M$_\odot$)
3098: are changing much more slowly over $z=0.05-1.5$.
3099:
3100: Over this redshift range Fontana06 find a relatively invariant
3101: $\alpha(z)\sim -1.2$, but their $M_\star(z)$ rises by about
3102: 0.12~dex from $z=0$, where $\log M_\star =11.16$ from Cole01,
3103: to $z=1.35$. Our $\alpha(z)$ values are slightly greater than
3104: this, though consistent with a constant $\alpha(z)=-1.2$ within
3105: the $2\sigma$ errors (see Fig.~\ref{mlf_all}).
3106: Our slightly greater $\alpha(z)$ values are
3107: a consequence of Fontana06 having a turn-up
3108: at the low-mass end (see their Fig.~4).
3109: It is quite likely that this is a result of
3110: their use of photometric redshifts, which are more problematic
3111: for low-mass galaxies because such galaxies are predominantly blue
3112: and harder to fit, but it could also be a measure of the cosmic
3113: variance.
3114:
3115: However, we do see a significant evolution in the mean mass
3116: (a rise in either $M_\star$ or $\alpha$ with increasing redshift)
3117: in our data. In particular, the fitted values in the highest redshift
3118: interval are not consistent at the $3\sigma$ level with those
3119: in the lowest redshift interval (see Fig.~\ref{mlf_all}). We can see
3120: this evolution most clearly by adopting a fixed $\alpha(z)=-1.18$
3121: from the local Cole01 fit and computing
3122: $M_\star(z)$ for this fixed slope. This is given as the final
3123: column in Table~\ref{sty_fits}, and it shows a rise of about
3124: 0.12~dex between $z=0$ (Cole01) and our highest redshift interval,
3125: an identical result to that of Fontana06.
3126:
3127:
3128: %
3129: % FIGURE 39
3130: %
3131: \begin{inlinefigure}
3132: \figurenum{39}
3133: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f39.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3134: \vskip -0.2cm
3135: \figcaption[]{
3136: Stellar mass density per logarithmic galaxy mass interval
3137: in the redshift range $z=0.8-1.2$ {\em (black squares)\/}
3138: compared with the local distribution from Cole01 {\em (purple crosses)\/}.
3139: The error bars are as in Figure~\ref{fig_mfun}.
3140: \label{mass_den_plot}
3141: }
3142: \end{inlinefigure}
3143:
3144:
3145: The change in $M_\star(z)$ is a numerical consequence of the
3146: build-up of the low-mass region of the galactic stellar mass
3147: function relative to the high-mass region.
3148: In Figure~\ref{mass_den_plot} we compare the
3149: stellar mass density per logarithmic galaxy mass interval
3150: in the redshift range $z=0.8-1.2$ {\em (black squares)\/} with
3151: that from Cole01 locally {\em (purple crosses)\/}. Both distribution
3152: functions are strongly peaked with most of the mass density lying in
3153: galaxies with masses close to the peak value. However, the Cole01
3154: function is broader and extends to lower masses.
3155:
3156: The peak of the mass density per logarithmic
3157: galaxy mass, $M_\star(z) (2\alpha(z)+1)$,
3158: provides an alternative way to characterize the Schechter function
3159: (see Baldry et al.\ 2006). The evolution of the peak is
3160: better defined than the evolution of either $\alpha(z)$ and
3161: $M_{\star}(z)$ separately. The location of the peak increases
3162: from $11.07\pm0.01$~M$_\odot$ in Cole01 and
3163: 10.88 ($10.77-11.09$)~M$_\odot$ in our lowest redshift interval
3164: to $11.18\pm0.03$~M$_\odot$ in our highest redshift interval.
3165:
3166:
3167: \subsection{Stellar Mass Density Growth with Redshift}
3168: \label{secmassassembly}
3169:
3170: In Figure~\ref{mden_byz} we plot the stellar mass density
3171: versus redshift for various mass
3172: intervals. In both panels we use black solid squares
3173: and 68\% confidence limits to show the mass density
3174: evolution for all of the galaxies in our sample
3175: above $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$.
3176: We also obtained the local mass density above $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$
3177: by integrating the Cole01 function.
3178: We denote this by a black open square, which
3179: we show extended to all redshifts {\em (black dashed
3180: line)\/} for ease of comparison.
3181: $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$ is the lowest mass to which we can measure
3182: the mass density over our entire $z=0.05-1.5$ redshift range.
3183:
3184:
3185: %
3186: % FIGURE 40
3187: %
3188: \begin{inlinefigure}
3189: \figurenum{40}
3190: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f40a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3191: \vskip -0.6cm
3192: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f40b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3193: \vskip -0.2cm
3194: \figcaption[]{
3195: Universal stellar mass density vs. redshift. In both panels
3196: the black solid squares show the evolution
3197: of the mass density for all sources above $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$,
3198: and the black open square (and black dashed line) shows the local
3199: mass density above $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$ obtained by integrating the
3200: Cole01 function.
3201: (a) The evolution in the mass intervals $10^{11.5}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$
3202: {\em (blue triangles, highest-mass interval)\/} and
3203: $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$ {\em (red diamonds, high-mass interval)\/}.
3204: (b) The evolution in the mass intervals
3205: $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ {\em (cyan triangles, intermediate-mass
3206: interval)\/} and $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$
3207: {\em (purple diamonds, low-mass interval)\/}.
3208: The low-mass interval is only shown at $z<0.9$
3209: where it is complete. Errors are the maximum of the numerical
3210: and variance errors discussed in the text.
3211: The least-square polynomial fits of $\log \rho$ vs.
3212: $\log(1+z)$ are shown with the solid curves.
3213: The local mass densities for each of the mass intervals
3214: obtained by integrating the Cole01 function
3215: {\em (open symbols, color corresponds to the mass interval)\/}
3216: are also shown extended to all redshifts {\em (dashed lines)\/}.
3217: \label{mden_byz}
3218: }
3219: \end{inlinefigure}
3220:
3221:
3222: In Figure~\ref{mden_byz}a
3223: we show the mass density evolution for two high-mass
3224: intervals: $10^{11.5}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$ {\em (blue triangles;
3225: hereafter, our highest-mass interval)\/}
3226: and $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$ {\em (red diamonds;
3227: our high-mass interval)\/}.
3228: In Figure~\ref{mden_byz}b we show the mass density evolution
3229: for two lower mass intervals: $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$
3230: {\em (cyan triangles; our intermediate-mass interval)\/}
3231: and $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$ {\em (purple diamonds;
3232: our low-mass interval)\/}. We show the evolution
3233: in the low-mass interval only to $z=0.9$ where the sample is complete.
3234: We obtained the local mass density for each of the mass
3235: intervals by integrating the Cole01 function over
3236: those intervals {\em (open symbols)\/}. For ease of comparison,
3237: we show those local mass densities extended to all redshifts
3238: {\em (dashed lines)\/}.
3239:
3240: Locally almost equal mass densities lie in the high
3241: {\em (open red diamond in Fig.~\ref{mden_byz}a)\/} and intermediate
3242: {\em (open cyan triangle in Fig.~\ref{mden_byz}b)\/}
3243: mass intervals. However,
3244: the high-mass interval material is changing more slowly
3245: than the intermediate-mass interval material, which is growing
3246: smoothly over the whole $z=0.05-1.5$ range. The low-mass interval
3247: material is also growing smoothly over $z=0.05-0.9$.
3248: The highest-mass interval material has a slow
3249: evolution (and indeed is consistent with
3250: having no evolution) over the entire $z=0.05-1.5$ range, though
3251: the error bars are large and the amount of material
3252: contained in this mass interval is small.
3253:
3254: The mass-sliced data may be most easily compared with
3255: Conselice07, who present their data in a similar way.
3256: While the Conselice07 sample
3257: is a large one (almost 50,000 objects), the data are not of the
3258: same quality as that in Fontana06 or in the present paper.
3259: Only about 22\% of their sample have spectroscopic
3260: redshifts from the DEEP2 observations,
3261: and their photometric redshifts were calculated using
3262: only 4 ($BRIK$; half the sample) or 5 ($BRIJK$) band colors.
3263: These are too few colors to get reliable measurements of all of
3264: the desired quantities (i.e., extinction, photometric redshifts,
3265: mass, age/metallicity, and evolutionary model).
3266: For comparison, recall that over the redshift range $z=0.05-1.5$
3267: we have spectroscopic redshifts
3268: for 84\% of the galaxies in our uniform NIR flux-limited
3269: sample (see \S\ref{secspec}).
3270: Moreover, for the very small fraction
3271: of sources where we used photometric redshifts, they were derived
3272: from 13 band colors ($UBVRIz'JHK_s$ and the four {\em Spitzer\/}
3273: IRAC bands). Fontana06 used 14 band colors to determine their
3274: predominantly photometric redshifts.
3275:
3276: Despite these limitations, the agreement is good.
3277: We can compare our Figure~\ref{mden_byz} with Figure~4 of
3278: Conselice07 if we convert our stellar masses and stellar mass
3279: densities to the Chabrier (2003) IMF used by Conselice07 by
3280: dividing by 1.70, as discussed in \S\ref{secintro}.
3281: Our results extend to lower masses than Conselice07 since our
3282: NIR sample is deeper.
3283: However, if we compare the region of mass and redshift where
3284: the two studies overlap, then we find good agreement between the
3285: two results in both absolute
3286: value and shape. Both analyses show slow growth at the
3287: higher masses and more rapid growth at the lower masses. The one
3288: quantitative difference is that we do not reproduce the sharp
3289: drop in the mass density which Conselice07 see in their
3290: $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$
3291: interval above $z=1.2$. It is not clear whether this is
3292: simply a result of cosmic variance (neither of the surveys are
3293: large enough for cosmic variance not to matter), or whether it
3294: is related to Conselice07's use of 4 or 5 band photometric redshifts.
3295: Since the present work is based on a much deeper and far more
3296: spectroscopically complete sample than that of Conselice07, our
3297: results should be more reliable if this is the explanation.
3298:
3299: In order to quantify the results of Figure~\ref{mden_byz}, we
3300: made least-square polynomial fits to the logarithmic stellar
3301: mass densities [including the local values obtained by integrating
3302: the Cole01 function] versus the logarithmic cosmic time.
3303: We show these in Figure~\ref{mden_byz} with solid curves.
3304: For the total mass above $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$ we find
3305: %
3306: \begin{equation}
3307: \log {\rm \rho_\ast(>10.5~{\rm M_\odot})} = 8.56 +
3308: (0.73\pm0.16) \log(t/t_{0}) \,,
3309: \label{massint1}
3310: \end{equation}
3311: %
3312: and for the mass intervals we find
3313: %
3314: \begin{equation}
3315: \log {\rm \rho_\ast(10^{10}-10^{10.5}~{\rm M_\odot})} =
3316: 7.89 + (1.11\pm0.28) \log(t/t_{0}) \,,
3317: \label{massint2}
3318: \end{equation}
3319: %
3320: \begin{equation}
3321: \log {\rm \rho_\ast(10^{10.5}-10^{11}~{\rm M_\odot})} =
3322: 8.20 + (0.95\pm0.10) \log(t/t_{0}) \,,
3323: \label{massint3}
3324: \end{equation}
3325: %
3326: \begin{equation}
3327: \log {\rm \rho_\ast(10^{11}-10^{11.5}~{\rm M_\odot})} =
3328: 8.22 + (0.65\pm0.12) \log(t/t_{0}) \,,
3329: \label{massint4}
3330: \end{equation}
3331: %
3332: \begin{equation}
3333: \log {\rm \rho_\ast(10^{11.5}-10^{12}~{\rm M_\odot})} =
3334: 7.57 + (0.59\pm0.37) \log(t/t_{0}) \,.
3335: \label{massint5}
3336: \end{equation}
3337: %
3338: The fit for Equation~\ref{massint2} is over the $z=0.05-0.9$ redshift
3339: range, while the remaining fits are over the $z=0.05-1.5$ range.
3340: The low-mass ranges ($<10^{11}$~M$_\odot$) are growing approximately
3341: linearly with time, while the high-mass ranges are growing more
3342: slowly. Thus, the low-mass galaxies have roughly constant stellar
3343: mass density growth rates, and it is the drop
3344: in the growth rates in the high-mass galaxies that is responsible for
3345: the overall drop in the growth rates seen in Equation~\ref{massint1}.
3346:
3347: We also computed the total stellar mass density
3348: evolution by integrating to the limiting mass in each redshift interval
3349: and extrapolating to estimate the contribution from lower mass galaxies.
3350: This correction is not large since
3351: the total mass density is dominated by galaxies
3352: near $M_\star(z)$. Locally about 72\% of the mass density lies
3353: in galaxies above $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$ and about
3354: 89\% in galaxies above $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$.
3355: If we use our best-fit Schechter function, then in the $z=0.9-1.5$
3356: interval about 88\% of the mass density lies
3357: in galaxies above $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$ and about
3358: 97\% in galaxies above $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$. If we instead
3359: force-fit to $\alpha=-1.18$, then the percentages are
3360: 77\% and 91\%, respectively. When we include these corrections,
3361: the total stellar mass density has a slightly steeper
3362: dependence on redshift than does the mass density above
3363: $10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$. Using, respectively, our best-fit Schechter
3364: function and the fit where $\alpha$ is forced to $-1.18$, we find
3365: %
3366: \begin{equation}
3367: \log {\rm \rho_\ast(total)} = 8.77 + (0.91\pm0.15) \log(t/t_{0}) \,,
3368: \label{massinttot1}
3369: \end{equation}
3370: %
3371: and
3372: %
3373: \begin{equation}
3374: \log {\rm \rho_\ast(total)} = 8.77 + (0.80\pm0.15) \log(t/t_{0}) \,.
3375: \label{massinttot2}
3376: \end{equation}
3377:
3378:
3379: \subsection{Star Formation History}
3380: \label{secsfh}
3381:
3382: We tested our empirical SFR calibrations (\S\ref{seccal})
3383: by calculating the universal SFH from $z=0.05-1$ for
3384: all of the galaxies in our NIR sample. We show this in
3385: Figure~\ref{ha_rho_star_bymass},
3386: where we use red open (solid) squares to denote the star formation
3387: rate densities (SFRDs) calculated from the \hb\ (UV) luminosity
3388: densities after applying our extinction corrections.
3389: As is well known, the extinction corrections are
3390: substantial, typically factors of five in the various redshift
3391: bins. At $z=0.9$ about 80\% of the light is dust
3392: reradiated. Our extinction corrected values at $z>0.3$ agree broadly
3393: with the many measurements in the literature (see the references
3394: in \S\ref{secintro}). We explicitly compare
3395: with the values derived from radio and submillimeter
3396: data from the stacking analysis of Wang et al.\ (2006)
3397: {\em (black squares)\/}. These should be a good measure of the
3398: total star formation history, including highly-obscured sources.
3399: The good agreement suggests that we are seeing most of
3400: the higher redshift star formation in our present sample.
3401:
3402:
3403: %
3404: % FIGURE 41
3405: %
3406: \begin{inlinefigure}
3407: \figurenum{41}
3408: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f41.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3409: \vskip -0.2cm
3410: \figcaption[]{
3411: Star formation histories calculated from the rest-frame
3412: \hb\ {\em (open)\/} and UV {\em (solid)\/} luminosity densities
3413: of the NIR sample using the calibrations of \S\ref{seccal}.
3414: The red symbols show the extinction corrected SFRDs.
3415: The purple symbols show the extinction uncorrected SFRDs.
3416: The black solid squares were derived by Wang et al.\ (2006) from
3417: radio and submillimeter data and agree well with our extinction
3418: corrected values. The blue symbols show the SFRDs
3419: directly seen at rest-frame UV wavelengths for UV selected galaxies.
3420: We only show the {\em GALEX\/} determinations of
3421: Wyder et al.\ (2005; local) and Schiminovich et al.\ (2005)
3422: {\em (downward pointing triangles)\/} and the ground-based
3423: determinations of Wilson et al.\ (2002)
3424: {\em (upward pointing triangles)\/}, since these
3425: are the most accurate measurements near $z=1$.
3426: All agree reasonably well with our extinction uncorrected values.
3427: The formal errors are mostly smaller than the symbol sizes.
3428: \label{ha_rho_star_bymass}
3429: }
3430: \end{inlinefigure}
3431:
3432:
3433: However, the SFRDs from the NIR sample drop steeply at
3434: lower redshifts. At these lower redshifts most of the star formation
3435: is instead seen as direct UV emission from lower mass galaxies, which
3436: have very small extinctions. Thus,
3437: in Figure~\ref{ha_rho_star_bymass} we also show the SFRDs derived
3438: from our extinction uncorrected data. Here we use purple open
3439: (solid) diamonds to denote the SFRDs calculated from the \hb\ (UV)
3440: luminosity densities. Since the extinction correction is
3441: smaller at \hb, the \hb\ points lie above the
3442: UV points. We can compare the UV data with the literature results
3443: for rest-frame UV flux measurements of UV selected
3444: galaxies {\em (blue symbols)\/}, such as the ground-based observations
3445: of Wilson et al.\ (2000) {\em (upward pointing triangles)\/} and
3446: the more recent {\em GALEX\/} determinations of Wyder et al.\ (2005; local)
3447: and Schiminovich et al.\ (2005) {\em (downward pointing
3448: triangles)}. We again find close agreement.
3449:
3450: In Figure~\ref{sfr_comp_bymass} we show our extinction
3451: corrected SFRDs {\em (red squares)\/}
3452: calculated from the rest-frame UV
3453: luminosity densities versus redshift
3454: for the mass intervals (a) $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$,
3455: (b) $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
3456: (c) $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$, and
3457: (d) $10^{11.5}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$.
3458: As another check of our UV extinction corrections, we also
3459: show the SFRDs {\em (blue diamonds)\/}
3460: obtained by adding those computed from the $24~\mu$m fluxes for
3461: the obscured star formation with those computed from the extinction
3462: uncorrected \oii\ luminosities for the unobscured star formation
3463: (see Conselice07). This method has no dependence on the
3464: UV extinction corrections and shows extremely similar
3465: results to the UV-based method.
3466:
3467:
3468: %
3469: % FIGURE 42
3470: %
3471: \begin{figure*}
3472: \figurenum{42}
3473: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f42a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
3474: \psfig{figure=f42b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3475: \vskip -0.6cm
3476: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f42c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
3477: \psfig{figure=f42d.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3478: \vskip -0.2cm
3479: \figcaption[]{
3480: Star formation rate densities from two different methods vs.
3481: redshift for the mass intervals (a) $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$,
3482: (b) $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
3483: (c) $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$, and
3484: (d) $10^{11.5}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$.
3485: The red squares show the extinction corrected SFRDs calculated
3486: from the UV luminosity densities using our empirical calibrations.
3487: The blue diamonds show the completely independent calculation
3488: of the SFRDs from the 24~$\mu$m fluxes and the extinction uncorrected
3489: \oii\ fluxes.
3490: \label{sfr_comp_bymass}
3491: }
3492: \end{figure*}
3493:
3494:
3495: In Figure~\ref{final_sfr_dist} we show our UV-based extinction
3496: corrected SFRDs per unit logarithmic mass versus the logarithmic
3497: mass in the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$
3498: {\em (red diamonds)\/}, $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/},
3499: and $z=0.9-1.5$ {\em (blue triangles)\/}.
3500: In each redshift interval we only show the SFRDs over
3501: the mass range where the NIR sample is complete.
3502: Just for a shape comparison, we also show
3503: on the figure the stellar mass density distribution function for
3504: $z=0.475-0.9$ divided by the age of the universe at $z=0.7$
3505: {\em (black curve)\/}. The contrast between this and the SFRD
3506: distribution is striking, with the latter being much more
3507: strongly weighted to low-mass galaxies. At all redshifts there is
3508: very little star formation at masses $>10^{11.1}$~M$_\odot$, but
3509: at high redshifts the star formation peaks in the interval
3510: $10^{10.5}-10^{11.1}$~M$_\odot$.
3511: It is the drop in star formation for galaxies in this
3512: mass interval that results in the drop in the overall SFH.
3513: At lower masses there is relatively little change over $z=0.05-0.9$.
3514:
3515:
3516: %
3517: % FIGURE 43
3518: %
3519: \begin{inlinefigure}
3520: \figurenum{43}
3521: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f43.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3522: \vskip -0.2cm
3523: \figcaption[]{
3524: Extinction corrected star formation rate density per
3525: unit logarithmic mass vs. logarithmic mass
3526: in the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$
3527: {\em (red diamonds)\/}, $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/},
3528: and $z=0.9-1.5$ {\em (blue triangles)\/}.
3529: The solid black curve shows the corresponding shape of the
3530: stellar mass density distribution function for $z=0.475-0.9$
3531: divided by the age of the universe at $z=0.7$.
3532: \label{final_sfr_dist}
3533: }
3534: \end{inlinefigure}
3535:
3536:
3537: \subsection{Comparison of Growth Rates}
3538: \label{secgrowth}
3539:
3540: In this section we want to compare the stellar mass density growth
3541: rates produced by star formation with those measured from
3542: the stellar mass functions. Other groups have made this comparison
3543: before (e.g., Borch et al.\ 2006; P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez et al.\ 2008),
3544: but generally they have not done so by mass interval, nor have
3545: they done it self-consistently, since they rely on other groups'
3546: determinations of the star formation.
3547: Thus, they have to assume that the galaxies producing the
3548: star formation have masses in the same range as the galaxies
3549: in their stellar mass function analysis. A comparison by mass
3550: interval is a much more powerful way to analyze this type of data.
3551:
3552: First, to obtain the growth rates from
3553: the stellar mass functions, we took the derivative of the least-square
3554: polynomial fits of Equations~\ref{massint2}$-$\ref{massint5}
3555: after multiplying the mass densities by the average
3556: correction of 1.35 given in \S\ref{secintro} to convert to formed
3557: stellar mass densities (i.e., the total mass density formed into
3558: stars prior to stellar mass loss; it is the formed
3559: mass density growth rates which are directly related to the SFRDs).
3560: We show these growth rates {\em (purple solid lines)\/} in
3561: Figure~\ref{nuv_rho_star_bymass} versus redshift for the mass intervals
3562: (a) $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$,
3563: (b) $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
3564: (c) $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$, and
3565: (d) $10^{11.5}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$.
3566:
3567:
3568: %
3569: % FIGURE 44
3570: %
3571: \begin{figure*}
3572: \figurenum{44}
3573: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f44a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
3574: \psfig{figure=f44b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3575: \vskip -0.6cm
3576: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f44c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
3577: \psfig{figure=f44d.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3578: \vskip -0.2cm
3579: \figcaption[]{
3580: Mass formation rate densities from two different methods vs.
3581: redshift for the mass intervals (a) $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$,
3582: (b) $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
3583: (c) $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$, and
3584: (d) $10^{11.5}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$.
3585: The red squares show the formed stellar mass density growth rates
3586: that the extinction corrected SFRDs calculated from the UV luminosity
3587: densities using our empirical calibrations would produce in each mass
3588: interval, as calculated from Eq.~\ref{eqnmasscon2}.
3589: The blue diamonds show the same but this time based on the SFRDs
3590: calculated from the 24~$\mu$m and extincton uncorrected \oii\ fluxes.
3591: The purple solid lines show the formed stellar mass density growth
3592: rates as obtained from the derivative of the least-square polynomial
3593: fits to the stellar mass density history
3594: (Eqs.~\ref{massint2}$-$\ref{massint5}) after multiplying
3595: by a factor of 1.35 to convert the present stellar masses to
3596: formed stellar masses (see \S\ref{secintro}). The purple dashed
3597: lines show the range given by the $1\sigma$ errors on the fits.
3598: The black dotted lines show the 68\% range in the specific star
3599: formation rates from Noeske et al. 2007.
3600: \label{nuv_rho_star_bymass}
3601: }
3602: \end{figure*}
3603:
3604:
3605: Next, to compute the expected formed
3606: stellar mass density growth rates produced by star formation,
3607: we need to allow for the fact that the mass of a
3608: galaxy will grow as it forms stars. Consequently, the mass that
3609: formed in one mass interval will eventually end up in another mass
3610: interval. We can describe this movement with the conservation equation
3611: %
3612: \begin{equation}
3613: \dot{\rho}(M) = s(M) - {d\over dM}(\dot{M}\rho(M)) \,,
3614: \label{eqnmasscon}
3615: \end{equation}
3616: %
3617: where $\rho(M)$ is the stellar mass density per unit mass
3618: interval and $s(M)$ is the SFRD per unit mass interval.
3619: Since $\dot{M}$ is related to $s(M)$ through $\dot{M}=s(M)/\phi(M)$,
3620: where $\phi(M)$ is the number of galaxies per unit mass interval,
3621: and $M$ is related to $\rho(M)$ through $M=\rho(M)/\phi(M)$, we
3622: can rewrite the equation as
3623: %
3624: \begin{equation}
3625: \dot{\rho}(M) = -{ds(M)\over d\ln(M)} \,.
3626: \label{eqnmasscon2}
3627: \end{equation}
3628: %
3629: Integrated over the total stellar mass function, Equation~\ref{eqnmasscon2}
3630: simply says that the rate of increase in the formed stellar mass
3631: density per unit time is equal to the SFRD.
3632:
3633: Merging can also redistribute mass from low to high masses in
3634: the galactic mass function (e.g., Conselice07), but this is much
3635: harder to quantify. As we shall see below,
3636: Equation~\ref{eqnmasscon2} provides a good description of the
3637: changes seen in the formed stellar mass function
3638: with mass and time without including substantial merging.
3639: Conselice07 reach a similar conclusion.
3640:
3641: As a simple intuitive example of the meaning of
3642: Equation~\ref{eqnmasscon2}, we may consider the case
3643: where the specific star formation rate is constant
3644: (i.e., $s\propto \rho$). In
3645: this case the mass distribution function per unit logarithmic
3646: mass, as shown in Figure~\ref{mass_den_plot}, simply moves
3647: to the right in the x-axis. Then the mass density in a given
3648: interval grows for high masses above the peak in the mass
3649: distribution function, where $d\rho/dln(M)$ is negative
3650: ($\dot{\rho}$ positive), and the mass density in a given
3651: interval drops at low masses, where $d\rho/dln(M)$ is
3652: positive ($\dot{\rho}$ negative).
3653:
3654: In Figure~\ref{nuv_rho_star_bymass} we show the formed
3655: stellar mass density growth rates produced by star formation
3656: (as calculated from Equation~\ref{eqnmasscon2}) for both the
3657: UV-based {\em (red squares)\/} and the $24~\mu$m$+$\oii-based
3658: {\em (blue diamonds)\/} methods. We can
3659: now compare these with the growth rates found earlier from
3660: the formed stellar mass functions {\em (purple lines)\/}.
3661: The agreement between the shapes with both redshift and mass
3662: is amazingly good. However, there is a slight normalization
3663: difference, with the Equation~\ref{eqnmasscon2} UV-based measurements
3664: being higher by about 0.1~dex in the $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$
3665: interval and higher by about 0.2~dex in the
3666: $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$
3667: and $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$ intervals.
3668: (The offset is $-0.2$~dex in the $10^{11.5}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$
3669: interval, but the uncertainties are large.) The offset is
3670: only slightly reduced if we exclude X-ray selected AGNs
3671: from the star formation calculation. Most previous
3672: analyses have also found the measurements based on star
3673: formation to be higher than the measurements based on the
3674: formed stellar mass functions (e.g., Fardal et al.\ 2007 and
3675: references therein). However, given the completely different
3676: wavelength ranges used (UV versus NIR), the uncertainties in the
3677: extinction corrections and in the stellar models, and the effects
3678: of cosmic variance, some discrepancy would inevitably
3679: be expected. In this sense, the agreement is remarkably
3680: good, even for the normalization.
3681:
3682: The offset is unlikely to be due to relative uncertainties
3683: in the local mass function, which generally lie at the 20\%$-$30\%
3684: level (e.g., compare Cole01, Bell et al.\ 2003, and Eke
3685: et al.\ 2005 with each other). Cole01 lies at the high end of
3686: the mass density estimates, and reducing the local mass density
3687: would increase the discrepancy. The offset is also unlikely to
3688: be due to overestimation of the UV extinction corrections, since
3689: our $24~\mu$m$+$\oii-based method for calculating the SFRDs is
3690: completely independent of the UV extinction corrections
3691: and shows extremely similar results to the UV-based method
3692: both in the direct SFRDs (Fig.~\ref{sfr_comp_bymass}) and in the
3693: formed stellar mass density growth rates computed from
3694: Equation~\ref{eqnmasscon2} (Fig.~\ref{nuv_rho_star_bymass}).
3695:
3696: However, the issue of the uncertainty in the population synthesis
3697: models and the recent treatments of TP-AGB stars, which we discussed
3698: in \S\ref{secfit}, is more complicated. If the
3699: BC03 masses which we are using are uniformly too
3700: high, then this would increase the discrepancy. However,
3701: if the local masses are close to the BC03 values
3702: and the high-redshift values are lower than the BC03 values,
3703: then we will increase the gradients in
3704: Equations~\ref{massint1}$-$\ref{massint5},
3705: and this will reduce the discrepancy.
3706: We may estimate a maximum effect by assuming that
3707: the mass densities in the $z=1.2-1.5$ interval are only
3708: 60\% of the BC03 values (the maximum correction in Bruzual 2007).
3709: This only slightly increases the formed stellar mass density growth
3710: rates in the various mass intervals, generally by less than 0.1~dex.
3711: We can see the reason for this by inspecting Figure~\ref{mden_byz}.
3712: Typically we are building a large fraction of the local mass
3713: density over $z=0.05-1.5$ and changing
3714: the starting point mass density downward has a relatively limited
3715: effect on the required growth rate. Thus, it appears that
3716: the mass density growth rates cannot be raised enough to explain
3717: the discrepancy with the rates inferred from star formation.
3718:
3719: A possible explanation for the offset
3720: is that the IMF is slightly different from the assumed
3721: Salpeter form. We can resolve the problem by changing the
3722: index of the IMF to $-1.10$. This is well within the uncertainties
3723: in the slope of the high-end IMF (Kroupa 2001; Chabrier 2003) and
3724: close to the Baldry \& Glazebrook (2003) value of $-1.15$.
3725: However, in order to obtain our observed \ha\ to UV ratio, we
3726: must turn this over at high masses. Using the $-1.10$ index to
3727: 10~M$_\odot$ and an index of $-1.6$ from 10~M$_\odot$ to
3728: 100~M$_\odot$ resolves both problems. Fardal et al.\ (2007)
3729: argued that this type of mid--mass-weighted IMF, which they
3730: describe as paunchy, can also help in providing a consistent
3731: description of the extragalactic background light.
3732:
3733:
3734: \subsection{Specific Star Formation Rates}
3735: \label{secstarspec}
3736:
3737: We now consider the distribution of specific SFRs (SSFRs)
3738: in the individual galaxies. Although in computing the
3739: instantaneous SSFRs we are simplifying the effects of the
3740: time history in the individual galaxies, it is still useful
3741: to have a quantitative description of the range of behaviors
3742: in the galaxies. We shall return to a study of
3743: the time history of the galaxies in \S\ref{seccolor}.
3744:
3745:
3746: %
3747: % FIGURE 45
3748: %
3749: \begin{inlinefigure}
3750: \figurenum{45}
3751: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f45.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3752: \vskip -0.2cm
3753: \figcaption[]{
3754: Specific star formation rates
3755: (SFR per unit mass in the galaxy) vs. mass in the redshift intervals
3756: $z=0.05-0.475$
3757: {\em (red diamonds)\/}, $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/},
3758: and $z=0.9-1.5$ {\em (blue triangles)\/}. The high-redshift
3759: sample is only shown above the limiting $3\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
3760: to which it is complete. The large symbols show the mean values
3761: for each redshift interval. The solid lines show the
3762: inverse age of the universe at redshifts $z=0.05$ {\em (red)\/},
3763: $z=0.475$ {\em (black)\/}, and $z=0.9$ {\em (blue)\/}.
3764: Only galaxies with an average SSFR
3765: above the inverse age of the universe at the redshift of the
3766: galaxy can undergo a significant change in mass.
3767: The red ($z=0.2-0.7$) and black ($z=0.85-1.1$) dotted lines
3768: show the ``main sequence'' range of Noeske et al.\ (2007).
3769: They claim that 68\% of the galaxies should lie within this range
3770: based on their DEEP2 observations.
3771: \label{mass_mstar}
3772: }
3773: \end{inlinefigure}
3774:
3775:
3776: In Figure~\ref{mass_mstar} we show the SSFRs versus
3777: galaxy mass in the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$
3778: {\em (red diamonds)\/}, $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/},
3779: and $z=0.9-1.5$ {\em (purple triangles)\/}.
3780: There is clearly a wide spread at all redshifts and masses.
3781: However, only galaxies with SSFRs larger than the inverse age
3782: of the universe at the redshift of the galaxy can change their
3783: mass significantly if those rates are maintained
3784: over the full time interval. We shall refer to such
3785: galaxies as strong star formers. Note that if the star formation is
3786: episodic, then the mass change in the galaxies will be smaller.
3787: Thus, the number of strong star formers
3788: represents an upper bound on the fraction of galaxies that
3789: may grow significantly at a given redshift.
3790: The mean SSFRs {\em (large symbols)\/}
3791: reproduce the results of \S\ref{secsfh}. That is,
3792: they show that, on average, only galaxies with masses
3793: $\lesssim10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ grow significantly in
3794: any of the redshift intervals.
3795: Since the high-redshift blue triangles
3796: cross the growth line at slightly higher masses than the black squares
3797: and red diamonds of the lower redshift intervals, the typical
3798: mass at which growth is taking place is downsizing in the later
3799: redshift intervals. In the lowest redshift interval where we can
3800: measure the masses below $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$,
3801: we see that the mean SSFRs finally flatten out (at a high level).
3802: There also appears to be a rough maximum to the SSFRs of
3803: about $3\times10^{-9}$~yr$^{-1}$.
3804:
3805: In Figure~\ref{dist_specific_bymass} we show the
3806: distribution functions of the SSFRs for the mass intervals
3807: (a) $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$,
3808: (b) $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
3809: and (c) $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$. In each panel
3810: the redshift intervals $z=0.9-1.5$ {\em (blue triangles)\/},
3811: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}, and
3812: $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red diamonds)\/} are shown.
3813: We see little evolution in the distribution functions over
3814: the observed redshift range, but they do have very
3815: different shapes in the different mass intervals.
3816:
3817:
3818: %
3819: % FIGURE 46
3820: %
3821: \begin{inlinefigure}
3822: \figurenum{46}
3823: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f46a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3824: \vskip -0.6cm
3825: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f46b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3826: \vskip -0.6cm
3827: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f46c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3828: \vskip -0.2cm
3829: \figcaption[]{
3830: Distribution functions of the specific star formation
3831: rates for logarithmic mass intervals (a) $11-11.5$~M$_\odot$,
3832: (b) $10.5-11$~M$_\odot$, and (c) $10-10.5$~M$_\odot$.
3833: In each panel the red diamonds denote $z=0.05-0.475$,
3834: the black squares $z=0.475-0.9$, and the blue triangles $z=0.9-1.5$.
3835: The error bars show the 68\% confidence limits. The blue triangles
3836: and black squares have been slightly displaced in the x-axis (by plus
3837: and minus 0.03, respectively) to allow the error bars to be distinguished.
3838: The solid vertical lines show the log of the
3839: inverse age of the universe at redshifts $z=0.05$ {\em (red)\/},
3840: $z=0.475$ {\em (black)\/}, and $z=0.9$ {\em (blue)\/}.
3841: \label{dist_specific_bymass}
3842: }
3843: \end{inlinefigure}
3844:
3845:
3846: In the highest mass interval (Fig.~\ref{dist_specific_bymass}a)
3847: most of the galaxies have very low SSFRs. There are only a small
3848: fraction of stong star formers at any redshift. Overall only about
3849: 10\% of the galaxies can be growing significantly.
3850: In the two lower mass intervals (Figs.~\ref{dist_specific_bymass}b,c)
3851: the number of sources with strong SSFRs increases. In fact, in the
3852: lowest mass interval (Fig.~\ref{dist_specific_bymass}c) galaxies
3853: with SSFRs above the $10^{-10}$~yr$^{-1}$ dominate the population.
3854: The percentages of strong star formers in all three mass
3855: intervals are given in Table~\ref{tabsf}. In the lowest
3856: mass range we give the values only in the two lower redshift
3857: intervals where the sample is complete.
3858:
3859: We may conclude from this that what star formation is occurring
3860: in the galaxies in the $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$ interval
3861: is spread over many galaxies,
3862: and there are very few galaxies in this mass interval that are
3863: undergoing significant growth. The situation is less clear
3864: in the lower mass intervals. By the time we reach the
3865: $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$ interval, the distribution
3866: is roughly evenly split between galaxies
3867: undergoing strong star formation and galaxies with
3868: weak star formation (see Table~\ref{tabsf}).
3869: This could be a distinction between two populations: one with
3870: strong ongoing star formation and one with weak or little growth.
3871: Alternatively, it could be that there is a high frequency of
3872: bursting relative to steady star formation at these redshifts
3873: with all galaxies undergoing significant star formation on average.
3874: Regardless of this point, a substantial number of the low-mass
3875: galaxies have SSFRs that, if maintained over the time
3876: frame, would change their mass significantly.
3877:
3878: We cannot easily compare our results with previous analyses
3879: of the evolution of the SSFRs over this redshift interval,
3880: such as Brinchmann \& Ellis (2000) or Bauer et al.\ (2005),
3881: since they did not include extinction corrections, which
3882: make substantial increases in the SSFRs. However, we can
3883: compare our results with a recent analysis by Noeske et al.\ (2007),
3884: who used a portion of the DEEP2 sample with $K$-band and
3885: 24~$\mu$m observations to analyze the SSFRs.
3886: They used 24~$\mu$m plus emission line estimates of the
3887: SFRs. Noeske et al.\ (2007) claim that the SSFRs
3888: lie within a rather tightly defined range as a
3889: function of mass. The normalization of this range increases
3890: with redshift, with the SSFRs increasing by roughly a factor
3891: of three from $z=0.3$ to $z=1$. They argue that this
3892: implies a smooth evolution in the galaxy SFRs,
3893: a result which would be inconsistent with our subsequent
3894: analysis of the star formation histories in the more
3895: massive galaxies using Balmer lines and colors.
3896: We show their ranges in Fig.~\ref{mass_mstar} with the dotted
3897: lines {\em (red: $z=0.2-0.7$; black: $z=0.85-1.1$)\/},
3898: where we have corrected their
3899: Kroupa masses to Salpeter. It is clear that the present results
3900: are inconsistent with the Noeske et al.\ (2007) analysis. While
3901: their upper bound corresponds roughly to the maximum values
3902: seen in the present SSFRs, we
3903: see a much larger scatter in the values for the high-mass galaxies
3904: above $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$. Our data include many galaxies with
3905: low SSFRs. The result is not dependent on
3906: the method we used to calculate the SFRs.
3907: We find the same effect using the 24~$\mu$m plus emission line
3908: estimates of the SFRs.
3909: The result is also not a simple consequence of the optical
3910: magnitude selection used in DEEP2 ($R=24.1$), since nearly all
3911: of the high-mass galaxies would be included by such a selection,
3912: as Noeske et al.\ (2007) discuss and we self-consistently
3913: find in the present data. The difference may lie in more subtle
3914: effects of the spectroscopic completeness versus color and
3915: optical magnitude or in the limited photometry of the DEEP2 sample.
3916:
3917: We can also compare
3918: our results with the local analysis of Brinchmann et al.\ (2004),
3919: and, in particular, with their Figure~24. (Their masses are based
3920: on the Kroupa IMF and must be increased by a factor of 1.54
3921: to match ours.) Brinchmann et al.\ (2004) only included star
3922: forming galaxies in their analysis, so their distribution
3923: is truncated at low SSFRs and the means are slightly
3924: higher. Nevertheless, the overall shape and normalization,
3925: including the roughly constant SSFRs at low mass, the
3926: decline in the SSFRs above $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$, the upper bound
3927: on the SSFRs, and the change in the distribution of SSFRs
3928: at high mass are all in extremely good agreement with the
3929: present results.
3930:
3931:
3932: \subsection{Galaxy Colors, Equivalent Widths, and the 4000~\AA\ Break}
3933: \label{seccolor}
3934:
3935: Rest-frame galaxy colors and features in the
3936: spectra, such as the equivalent widths of the emission
3937: lines and the strengths of the 4000~\AA\ break,
3938: provide a measure of the SSFRs convolved with the
3939: recent time history of the star formation. Since
3940: the colors and the various spectral features are sensitive
3941: to different stellar mass
3942: ranges, they can provide information
3943: on the time history of the star formation and how smooth
3944: or episodic it is. (See, e.g., the Kauffmann et al.\ 2003a
3945: analysis of the SDSS sample using the 4000~\AA\ break and the
3946: H$\delta$ line.) Thus, the combination of photometric
3947: and spectroscopic information in the present
3948: sample provides a powerful tool to investigate
3949: the nature of the star formation.
3950:
3951: Locally the SDSS results have shown that the galaxy colors
3952: are bimodal and divide into a red sequence of galaxies that
3953: are not currently undergoing star formation and a blue cloud
3954: of galaxies with active star formation
3955: (e.g., Strateva et al.\ 2001;
3956: Baldry et al.\ 2004). The red sequence dominates above
3957: $3\times 10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ (Kauffmann et al.\ 2003b), and the
3958: blue cloud dominates below.
3959: This color bimodality is also seen in higher redshift,
3960: optically-selected samples (e.g., Bell et al.\ 2004;
3961: Weiner et al.\ 2005; Giallonga et al.\ 2005;
3962: Willmer et al.\ 2006).
3963: However, these analyses did not correct for internal
3964: extinction, which, as we shall show below, is important.
3965: Moreover, the bimodality appears to be at least partially
3966: a consequence of the optical selection and is not so strong
3967: in our mass-selected samples at the higher redshifts.
3968:
3969: In Figure~\ref{color_redshift} we show the rest-frame
3970: UV$-$blue (AB3400$-$AB4500) colors uncorrected for
3971: extinction for our full NIR sample versus redshift.
3972: (Note that if we change to the Vega-based magnitudes used
3973: by Willmer et al.\ 2006 in their DEEP2 analysis, then we find
3974: a nearly identical range of colors as they.) We see almost
3975: no evolution in the color distribution over the $z=0.05-1.5$
3976: redshift range. The precise split between
3977: the blue cloud and the red sequence depends on the mass
3978: or luminosity, but we have shown the rough split with the
3979: red dashed line. This is based on the average value of the
3980: relation given by van Dokkum et al.\ (2000) in the appropriate
3981: luminosity range. It is not easy to see evidence for strong
3982: bimodality in this figure.
3983: Rather, we see a uniform spread of colors stretching
3984: from the blue cloud to the red sequence. Nearly all of the
3985: galaxies in the intermediate color range (sometimes referred
3986: to as the green valley) are 24$~\mu$m sources
3987: {\em (green triangles)\/}.
3988:
3989:
3990: %
3991: % FIGURE 47
3992: %
3993: \begin{inlinefigure}
3994: \figurenum{47}
3995: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f47.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
3996: \vskip -0.2cm
3997: \figcaption[]{
3998: Rest-frame $3400-4500$~\AA\ color vs. redshift
3999: for our NIR sample. Green triangles denote $24~\mu$m sources,
4000: and black squares denote sources which are not detected
4001: at $24~\mu$m. Sources with X-ray luminosities implying
4002: the presence of an AGN are enclosed in red diamonds.
4003: The red dashed horizontal line shows the approximate
4004: separation between the blue cloud and the red sequence
4005: based on the average value of the relation given by
4006: van Dokkum et al.\ (2000) in the appropriate luminosity
4007: range.
4008: \label{color_redshift}
4009: }
4010: \end{inlinefigure}
4011:
4012:
4013: The spread in colors may be more clearly seen
4014: in histogram form. In Figure~\ref{ub_hist}a
4015: we show the colors prior to applying any extinction corrections.
4016: We see that the 24~$\mu$m sources lie in the green valley
4017: {\em (green dashed line)\/}. While there is a hint of bimodality
4018: in the total sample {\em (black solid line)\/}, it is quite weak
4019: with sources present at all colors. In Figure~\ref{ub_hist}b
4020: we show the colors after correcting for
4021: extinction. Now the bulk of the 24~$\mu$m sources lie in the
4022: blue cloud, and there is a more clearly bimodal distribution
4023: in the total sample. Even with the extinction correction there
4024: are still many sources (both $24~\mu$m and non-$24~\mu$m)
4025: in the intermediate color region, but it is clear that
4026: applying extinction corrections is critical when
4027: analyzing the galaxy colors. Many of the sources
4028: seen in the green valley and the red sequence prior to correcting
4029: for extinction are, in fact, dusty sources with intrinsically blue
4030: colors. Quantitatively, 801 out of 2254 sources (35\%) are in the red
4031: sequence (defining this as AB3400$-$AB4500$>1.03$) prior to the
4032: extinction correction, but nearly half of these are dusty blue
4033: galaxies. After applying the extinction correction, the number in
4034: the red sequence gets reduced to 466 out of 2254 sources, or
4035: roughly 20\%.
4036:
4037: The extinction corrections have a mass dependence since
4038: higher mass galaxies, with their larger column densities of gas
4039: and dust, reprocess more of their UV light. (The very highest
4040: mass galaxies will generally have lower extinctions because
4041: they are gas deficient.) The extinction
4042: corrections may also have a redshift dependence due to the
4043: evolution in the metallicity and gas content of the galaxies.
4044: Thus, any analyses of the color versus mass or color versus
4045: luminosity relations that do not apply extinction corrections
4046: will be biased.
4047:
4048: In Figure~\ref{color_mass_dered} we show the dereddened
4049: colors versus galaxy mass for the redshift intervals
4050: (a) $z=0.9-1.5$, (b) $z=0.475-0.9$, and (c) $z=0.05-0.475$.
4051: The red sequence is clearly seen in all of the intervals.
4052: Rather than attempt to measure the slope of the color-mass
4053: relation from the present data, we have assumed the locally
4054: determined slope of 0.08~mag per dex in mass determined
4055: by van der Wel et al.\ (2007). We then normalized this
4056: slope to match the red sequence galaxies in the $z=0.9-1.5$
4057: redshift interval with masses above $3\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
4058: to obtain the red sequence relation with mass, $M$,
4059: %
4060: \begin{equation}
4061: {\rm AB3400}-{\rm AB4500} = 1.26+0.08(\log M-9) \,.
4062: \label{sepeq}
4063: \end{equation}
4064: %
4065: We show this relation with the solid black line in
4066: Figure~\ref{color_mass_dered}.
4067: In contrast to previous results from optically-selected
4068: and extinction uncorrected data (e.g., Bell et al.\ 2004;
4069: van der Wel et al.\ 2007), we see no change in the position
4070: of the red sequence with redshift. This suggests that the
4071: effect they observed was primarily a consequence of reddening.
4072: The intrinsic colors of the reddest galaxies are
4073: not changing over this redshift interval.
4074:
4075:
4076: %
4077: % FIGURE 48
4078: %
4079: \begin{inlinefigure}
4080: \figurenum{48}
4081: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f48a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4082: \vskip -0.6cm
4083: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f48b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4084: \vskip -0.2cm
4085: \figcaption[]{
4086: Distribution of rest-frame $3400-4500$~\AA\ color
4087: for our NIR sample (a) before and (b) after
4088: correcting for internal extinction. The black histogram
4089: shows the distribution of the total sample. The
4090: green dashed (red dotted) line shows the distribution of
4091: $24~\mu$m (non-24~$\mu$m) sources.
4092: The blue vertical line shows the approximate separation
4093: between the blue cloud and the red sequence based on the
4094: average value of the relation given by
4095: van Dokkum et al.\ (2000) in the appropriate luminosity
4096: range.
4097: \label{ub_hist}
4098: }
4099: \end{inlinefigure}
4100:
4101:
4102: While it is clear from Figure~\ref{ub_hist} that
4103: there is no precise split between the red sequence
4104: and the blue cloud, we may approximately separate
4105: them with a cut lying about 0.25~mag below
4106: the track of the red sequence,
4107: %
4108: \begin{equation}
4109: {\rm AB3400}-{\rm AB4500} = 1.01+0.08(\log M-9) \,.
4110: \label{sepeqn2}
4111: \end{equation}
4112: %
4113: This allows for the spread in colors in the red sequence
4114: itself. We show this relation in Figure~\ref{color_mass_dered}
4115: with the solid blue line.
4116: The high-mass, blue cloud galaxies are nearly all $24~\mu$m
4117: sources {\em (green triangles)\/}. Moreover, most of the
4118: $24~\mu$m sources lie in the blue cloud, though at the
4119: highest masses we also see some $24~\mu$m sources that
4120: move into the red sequence region.
4121:
4122:
4123: %
4124: % FIGURE 49
4125: %
4126: \begin{inlinefigure}
4127: \figurenum{49}
4128: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f49a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4129: \vskip -0.6cm
4130: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f49b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4131: \vskip -0.6cm
4132: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f49c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4133: \vskip -0.2cm
4134: \figcaption[]{
4135: Rest-frame $3400-4500$~\AA\ color corrected for
4136: extinction vs. logarithmic mass for our NIR sample
4137: in the redshift intervals (a) $z=0.9-1.5$, (b) $z=0.475-0.9$,
4138: and (c) $z=0.05-0.475$. The colors are only shown above the
4139: mass at which the sample in the given redshift interval is complete.
4140: Green triangles denote $24~\mu$m sources, and black squares
4141: denote sources which are not detected at $24~\mu$m. Sources
4142: with X-ray luminosities implying the presence of an AGN
4143: are enclosed in red diamonds. The solid black line shows
4144: the red sequence (with locally determined slope 0.08~mag
4145: per dex in mass) normalized to match the $z=0.9-1.5$
4146: interval. The blue line shows this relation offset by
4147: 0.25~mag, which we adopt as the split between the red
4148: sequence and the blue cloud.
4149: \label{color_mass_dered}
4150: }
4151: \end{inlinefigure}
4152:
4153:
4154: Although we can see that the red sources dominate at
4155: the high masses and that nearly all low-mass galaxies
4156: below $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ are blue cloud galaxies,
4157: there does not appear to be a clear transition
4158: mass in any of the redshift intervals. Rather, the
4159: fraction of galaxies with high SSFRs
4160: drops as we move to higher masses in all the
4161: redshift intervals. We also note that the split
4162: between the blue cloud and the red sequence becomes
4163: more pronounced at low redshifts, while at
4164: higher redshifts there are a considerable number of
4165: intermediate color sources.
4166:
4167:
4168: %
4169: % FIGURE 50
4170: %
4171: \begin{inlinefigure}
4172: \figurenum{50}
4173: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f50a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4174: \vskip -0.6cm
4175: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f50b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4176: \vskip -0.2cm
4177: \figcaption[]{
4178: (a) EW(\oii) and (b) the 4000~\AA\ break vs. the
4179: extinction corrected rest-frame
4180: AB3400$-$AB4500 color for the mid-$z$ sample ($z=0.05-0.9$)
4181: with masses greater than $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$.
4182: The black squares (green triangles) show sources without (with)
4183: $24~\mu$m detections. Sources containing AGNs based on their
4184: X-ray luminosities are enclosed in large red diamonds.
4185: The blue dashed lines show the rough division between
4186: the blue cloud and the red sequence. A color selection
4187: of AB3400$-$AB4500$>1.07$, which would separate the
4188: red sequence from the blue cloud at $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
4189: roughly corresponds to an EW(\oii)$<10$~\AA\ or a
4190: 4000~\AA\ break strength greater than 1.5.
4191: \label{tests}
4192: }
4193: \end{inlinefigure}
4194:
4195:
4196: We may also use the EW(\oii) or the 4000~\AA\ break
4197: to separate the galaxies. The EW(\oii) is independent of
4198: the extinction correction, and the 4000~\AA\ break is nearly
4199: independent so these provide an invaluable check of
4200: our analysis of the colors. In particular this removes
4201: any dependence on our BC03 fitting. In Figure~\ref{tests} we show
4202: (a) the EW(\oii) and (b) the 4000~\AA\ break versus the
4203: extinction corrected rest-frame AB3400$-$AB4500 color.
4204: While there is not a perfect one-to-one relation, a color
4205: selection of AB3400$-$AB$4500>1.07$ {\em (blue dashed
4206: vertical line)\/}, which would separate the red sequence
4207: from the blue cloud at $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$, roughly corresponds
4208: to an EW(\oii)$<10$~\AA\ {\em (blue dashed horizontal line in a)\/}
4209: or a 4000~\AA\ break strength greater than 1.5
4210: {\em (blue dashed horizontal line in b)\/}.
4211: Thus, these cuts may also be used to separate red sequence
4212: galaxies from blue cloud galaxies.
4213:
4214:
4215: %
4216: % FIGURE 51
4217: %
4218: \begin{inlinefigure}
4219: \figurenum{51}
4220: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f51a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4221: \vskip -0.6cm
4222: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f51b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4223: \vskip -0.2cm
4224: \figcaption[]{
4225: Mass density per unit log mass functions for
4226: (a) the red sequence galaxies and
4227: (b) the blue cloud galaxies in the redshift intervals
4228: $z=0.9-1.5$ {\em (blue triangles)\/},
4229: $z=0.457-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}, and
4230: $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red diamonds)\/}.
4231: \label{evol_mass}
4232: }
4233: \end{inlinefigure}
4234:
4235:
4236: In Figure~\ref{evol_mass} we show the mass density per unit log mass
4237: distribution
4238: functions separated by color using our dividing line between
4239: the blue cloud and the red sequence given in Equation~\ref{sepeqn2}.
4240: There are almost equal amounts of mass in the two color-selected
4241: samples, though the red sequence is highly peaked at $10^{11}$
4242: M$_\odot$ while the blue sequence has a substantial contribution
4243: from lower mass galaxies. In the $z=0.475-0.9$ redshift interval
4244: the red sequence contains $1.29\times10^{8}$ M$_\odot$
4245: Mpc$^{-3}$ and the blue cloud $1.45\times10^{8}$ M$_\odot$ Mpc$^{-3}$
4246: to the $10^{10}$ M$_\odot$ completeness limit at this redshift.
4247: Figure~\ref{evol_mass}a shows that growth in the mass density
4248: is occurring in red galaxies with masses in the interval
4249: $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$.
4250: However, it must be noted that this
4251: result is only based on the difference between the $z=0.475-0.9$
4252: and $z=0.9-1.5$ redhift intervals in the one mass bin and therefore the
4253: conclusion is rather weak.
4254: In contrast, Figure~\ref{evol_mass}b
4255: shows little apparent change in the mass distribution of
4256: the blue cloud with redshift.
4257: Bell et al.\ (2004), who first noted this effect,
4258: argued that since the star formation, and hence the mass build-up,
4259: is primarily occurring in the blue galaxies,
4260: the blue galaxies must be shifting to the red sequence
4261: at all times in order to leave the blue mass function invariant.
4262: However, Bundy et al. (2006) and Borch et al. (2006) both show
4263: evidence for a decline in the massive blue galaxies with cosmic
4264: time.
4265:
4266:
4267: %
4268: % FIGURE 52
4269: %
4270: \begin{inlinefigure}
4271: \figurenum{52}
4272: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f52a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4273: \vskip -0.6cm
4274: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f52b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4275: \vskip -0.6cm
4276: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f52c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4277: \vskip -0.2cm
4278: \figcaption[]{
4279: Mass density per unit log mass functions for rest-frame
4280: (a) EW(\oii$)<4$~\AA, (b) 4~\AA$~<~$EW(\oii$)<10$~\AA,
4281: and (c) EW(\oii$)>10$~\AA\ in the redshift intervals
4282: $z=0.9-1.5$ {\em (blue triangles)\/},
4283: $z=0.457-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}, and
4284: $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red diamonds)\/}.
4285: \label{evol_o2}
4286: }
4287: \end{inlinefigure}
4288:
4289:
4290: We can make a finer division using the EW(\oii).
4291: In Figure~\ref{evol_o2} we show the mass function split into
4292: three classes according to the strength of the \oii\ line.
4293: In (c) we show sources with rest-frame EW(\oii$)>10$~\AA,
4294: which, as we have discussed above, roughly corresponds to the
4295: blue cloud color selection. As for Figure~\ref{evol_mass}b, we
4296: see few signs of evolution. (Note that cosmic variance may
4297: be causing us some problems with the lowest redshift sources.)
4298: We then split the remaining galaxies
4299: into (b) weak emitters with $4$~\AA$~<~$EW(\oii$)<10$~\AA\ and
4300: (a) passive sources with EW(\oii$)<4$~\AA. With this division
4301: we can see growth occurring in both the passive sources and in
4302: the sources with weak star formation signatures, suggesting that
4303: the red sequence contains both a truly passive population with no
4304: signs of recent star formation and a population which has more
4305: recently evolved off the blue cloud and still contains signatures
4306: of recent star formation.
4307:
4308: We may consider this further by plotting the rest-frame
4309: AB3400$-$AB8140 color versus the rest-frame EW(\hb) to
4310: investigate the star formation history. Both are measures of
4311: the SSFRs in the galaxies and are therefore correlated with
4312: one another, but the EW(\hb) is produced by higher mass stars
4313: and thus fades more rapidly than the AB3400$-$AB8140 color,
4314: providing a well-known age signature.
4315: In Figure~\ref{ewhb_color} we plot the extinction corrected
4316: rest-frame AB3400$-$AB8140 color versus the rest-frame EW(\hb)
4317: for the $z=0.05-0.9$ sample with masses
4318: (a) $10^{11}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$,
4319: (b) $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$, and
4320: (c) $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$.
4321: All but one of the galaxies in the highest mass interval
4322: (Figure~\ref{ewhb_color}a) have little \hb\ emission.
4323: Most of the sources are very red, but there is
4324: a tail which extends to bluer colors. The 24~$\mu$m detected
4325: galaxies {\em (blue triangles)\/} are preferentially bluer
4326: than the non-24~$\mu$m galaxies {\em (black squares)\/}.
4327: We compare the observations with some simple evolutionary
4328: tracks from the BC03 models for galaxies with exponentially
4329: declining SFRs of $10^8$~yrs {\em (black solid)\/} (essentially
4330: a burst model),
4331: $5\times 10^8$~yrs {\em (red dashed)\/}, and
4332: $5\times 10^9$~yrs {\em (green dotted)\/}.
4333: The positions of the galaxies in Figure~\ref{ewhb_color}a
4334: are not consistent with the green dotted line, where the
4335: smoothly declining star formation history
4336: would continue to produce \hb\ emission at intermediate
4337: AB3400$-$AB8140 colors.
4338: Rather, we appear to be seeing episodic bursts of star
4339: formation that have moved the galaxy off
4340: the red sequence, but where the massive stars powering the \hb\
4341: emission have already burned away. Considering the burst model
4342: shown by the black line in Figure~\ref{ewhb_color}a,
4343: about a quarter of the galaxies
4344: have colors which would require a burst to have occurred in the
4345: last $3\times10^8-10^9$~yrs {\em (thin portion)\/}.
4346: It is these galaxies, which still have substantial
4347: UV flux, that are inferred to have high SSFRs in
4348: Figure~\ref{dist_specific_bymass}, while the more evolved
4349: galaxies lie in the low SSFR portion of this diagram.
4350: (This emphasizes again that the SSFRs in
4351: Figure~\ref{dist_specific_bymass} are not necessarily measures
4352: of the instantaneous star formation in the galaxy but are a
4353: time convolution of the SFR history.)
4354: In order to have this fraction of galaxies
4355: in the portion of the evolutionary track
4356: we would require bursts to occur in all galaxies about
4357: every $4\times10^9$~yrs.
4358: If some galaxies are totally passive and do not
4359: participate in this cycling between the red sequence
4360: and the blue cloud then the remaining galaxies
4361: must have more frequent bursts.
4362:
4363: Differential extinction, where the very massive stars
4364: producing the \hb\ line are more
4365: extinguished than the stars producing the UV continuum, could
4366: increase the EW(\hb) strength. However, this effect would
4367: have to be very large to move the blue sources with very
4368: weak \hb\ to the smooth star formation curves, and, as
4369: we have discussed in \S\ref{secrelext}, we see no signs of this
4370: effect in our comparison of the Balmer line ratios and the
4371: SED derived extinctions. Errors in the UV extinction corrections
4372: may also introduce scatter in the y-axis and place some sources
4373: at bluer locations than they should have, but, again, this effect
4374: cannot be large enough to move the sources onto the smooth
4375: star formation curves. Finally, truncation of the SFRs in the smooth
4376: models can move the tracks laterally over onto the burst model
4377: on short timescales, but it would not account for the bluest sources
4378: in the figure, which can only be reproduced with short bursts.
4379:
4380:
4381: %
4382: % FIGURE 53
4383: %
4384: \begin{inlinefigure}
4385: \figurenum{53}
4386: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f53a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4387: \vskip -0.6cm
4388: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f53b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4389: \vskip -0.6cm
4390: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f53c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4391: \vskip -0.2cm
4392: \figcaption[]{
4393: Extinction corrected rest-frame AB3400$-$AB8140 vs.
4394: rest-frame EW(\hb)
4395: for the $z=0.05-0.9$ sample in the logarithmic
4396: mass intervals (a) $11-12$~M$_\odot$, (b) $10.5-11$~M$_\odot$,
4397: and (c) $10-10.5$~M$_\odot$.
4398: The black squares (blue triangles) show sources without (with)
4399: $24~\mu$m detections. Sources containing AGNs based on their
4400: X-ray luminosities are denoted by large red diamonds.
4401: The curves show the tracks expected from the BC03 models for
4402: galaxies with exponentially declining star formation rates
4403: of $10^8$~yrs {\em (black solid)\/},
4404: $5\times10^8$~yrs {\em (red dashed)\/},
4405: and $5\times10^9$~yrs {\em (green dotted)\/}.
4406: The black curve is divided into ages of
4407: $3\times10^{8}-10^9$~yrs {\em (thin portion)\/}
4408: and greater than $10^9$~yrs {\em (thick portion)\/}.
4409: \label{ewhb_color}
4410: }
4411: \end{inlinefigure}
4412:
4413:
4414: The intermediate mass galaxies in Figure~\ref{ewhb_color}b
4415: have a larger fraction of galaxies with blue AB3400$-$AB4500 colors,
4416: suggesting that the burst frequency is higher in these galaxies.
4417: For the lowest mass galaxies shown in Figure~\ref{ewhb_color}c
4418: there appears to be a distinction between the 24~$\mu$m sources
4419: {\em (blue triangles)\/},
4420: which still preferentially lie along the burst track, and the
4421: non-24~$\mu$m sources {\em (black squares)\/},
4422: which are more consistent with smooth
4423: ongoing star formation. This suggests that it is the burst process
4424: which results in the dusty galaxies producing
4425: the 24~$\mu$m emission. In the higher mass galaxies
4426: bursting is the dominant process and all the galaxies
4427: with high SFRs are 24~$\mu$m sources.
4428:
4429:
4430: \subsection{Galaxy Morphologies}
4431: \label{secmassmorph}
4432:
4433: Galaxy morphologies, while closely related to
4434: the colors and spectral properties of the galaxies,
4435: provide an alternative view of the evolution.
4436: In particular, we would like to see in which types
4437: of galaxies the star formation and mass evolution
4438: is occurring and use this information to clarify the
4439: relationship between star formation and
4440: stellar growth in the mass density.
4441:
4442: The Ellis morphological classifications that
4443: we are using (see \S\ref{secmorph}) are
4444: based on the {\em HST\/} F850LP images. Therefore, in
4445: order to avoid biasing in type by observing the
4446: galaxies in the rest-frame UV rather than in the rest-frame
4447: optical, we will restrict the NIR sample to only galaxies
4448: at $z<1.2$ for this section. This ensures that the F850LP
4449: band corresponds to rest-frame wavelengths above 4000~\AA.
4450:
4451: We first compare the morphological typings with the
4452: spectral characteristics of the galaxies. In
4453: Figure~\ref{morph_split} we show the distribution of the
4454: galaxy types in both rest-frame EW(\hb) and 4000~\AA\ break
4455: strength. The black symbols show the E/S0 galaxies (classes $0-2$),
4456: the green symbols show the Sab and S galaxies (classes $3-4$),
4457: and the small red symbols show the Scd and Irr galaxies
4458: (classes $5-6$). The large red squares show the galaxies
4459: classified as Mergers (class 8). Both the spectral and the
4460: morphological typings place nearly all of the massive galaxies
4461: ($10^{11}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$; Figure~\ref{morph_split}a)
4462: into the E/S0 or Sab-S categories, while the lower mass galaxies
4463: ($10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$; Figure~\ref{morph_split}b)
4464: show a much wider distribution, including many Irr.
4465: Figure~\ref{morph_split} may be compared with
4466: Figure~4 of Barbaro \& Poggianti (1997) for a local
4467: sample. The positions of the morphological types
4468: in the 4000~\AA\ break-EW(\hb) plane match closely
4469: the positions of the local values. There is no change
4470: in this distribution over the redshift range $z=0.05-0.9$.
4471:
4472: In Figure~\ref{ew_morph} we quantitatively show the
4473: distribution of the EW(\hb) by morphological type
4474: for the mass intervals (a) $10^{11}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$,
4475: (b) $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$,
4476: and (c) $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$.
4477: We divide the galaxies into the broader classes of
4478: E/S0s (classes $0-2$) {\em (solid black line)\/},
4479: Spirals (classes $3-5$) {\em (dashed red line)\/},
4480: and Peculiars (classes 6 and 8) {\em (dotted cyan line)\/}.
4481: The distribution of equivalent widths
4482: is very similar for the Spirals and the Peculiars,
4483: but it is a strong function of mass. Most of the massive
4484: Spirals are only weak star formers, while the
4485: lower mass Spirals have a much wider distribution
4486: of equivalent widths, and the mean equivalent
4487: width is much larger.
4488:
4489:
4490: %
4491: % FIGURE 54
4492: %
4493: \begin{inlinefigure}
4494: \figurenum{54}
4495: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f54a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4496: \vskip -0.6cm
4497: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f54b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4498: \vskip -0.2cm
4499: \figcaption[]{
4500: Distribution of morphological types
4501: in both 4000~\AA\ break strength and
4502: rest-frame EW(\hb) in the mid-$z$ sample
4503: ($z=0.05-0.9$) for the logarithmic mass intervals
4504: (a) $11-12$~M$_\odot$ and (b) $10-11$~M$_\odot$.
4505: The black symbols show the E/S0 galaxies
4506: (solid squares = class 0, solid triangles = class 1, and
4507: open downward-pointing triangles = class 2);
4508: the green symbols show the Sab and S
4509: galaxies (diamonds = class 3, leftward-pointing triangles = class 4);
4510: the small red symbols show the Scd and Irr galaxies
4511: (open squares = class 5, rightward-pointing triangles = class 6);
4512: and the large red squares show the Mergers (class 8).
4513: \label{morph_split}
4514: }
4515: \end{inlinefigure}
4516:
4517:
4518: In Figure~\ref{mass_morph} we show galaxy morphological
4519: type versus mass for the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$
4520: {\em (red diamonds)\/}, $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/},
4521: and $z=0.9-1.2$ {\em (blue triangles)\/}. For each redshift
4522: range we only show galaxies above our mass completeness
4523: level of $2\times10^9$~M$_\odot$, $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ and
4524: $2\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ respectively. Confirming a well-known
4525: result, we see a strong correlation between the galaxy morphology
4526: and the galaxy mass, with many of the most massive galaxies
4527: being E/S0s (classes $0-2$). The large symbols show the median
4528: morphological types by mass and by redshift. A strong evolution
4529: with redshift in the mass-morphology relation is also evident.
4530: As an example, the typical $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ galaxy has moved
4531: from being an Sb-like (class 4) galaxy in the $z=0.9-1.2$ redshift
4532: interval {\em (blue)\/} to being an S0 (class 2) galaxy in the
4533: $z=0.05-0.475$
4534: redshift interval {\em (red)\/}, but this kind of morphological type
4535: evolution is present across the entire mass range.
4536:
4537:
4538: %
4539: % FIGURE 55
4540: %
4541: \begin{inlinefigure}
4542: \figurenum{55}
4543: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f55a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4544: \vskip -0.6cm
4545: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f55b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4546: \vskip -0.6cm
4547: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f55c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4548: \vskip -0.2cm
4549: \figcaption[]{
4550: Distribution of rest-frame EW(\hb) for galaxies
4551: in the redshift interval $z=0.05-0.9$ and in the logarithmic
4552: mass intervals (a) $11-12$~M$_\odot$, (b) $10.5-11$~M$_\odot$,
4553: and (c) $10-10.5$~M$_\odot$. In each panel the solid black line
4554: shows the E/S0 galaxies (classes $0-2$), the red dashed line
4555: shows the Spirals (classes $3-5$), and the dotted blue line
4556: shows the Peculiars (classes 6 and 8).
4557: \label{ew_morph}
4558: }
4559: \end{inlinefigure}
4560:
4561:
4562: We may now examine the morphological type distribution in
4563: which the stellar growth in the mass density is occurring.
4564: As we showed in
4565: \S\ref{seccolor} (Fig.~\ref{evol_o2}), the mass build-up in
4566: the redshift range $z=0.05-0.9$ is primarily in the passive
4567: (EW(\oii$)<4$~\AA) and weakly
4568: active galaxies (4~\AA$~<~$EW(\oii$)<12$~\AA)
4569: in the $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ interval.
4570: In Figure~\ref{ewo2_morph_dist} we show the distribution
4571: of morphological types in this redshift and mass interval
4572: split into passive galaxies {\em (black solid line)\/},
4573: weakly active galaxies {\em (red dashed line)\/},
4574: and strong emission line galaxies {\em (blue dotted line)\/}.
4575: It can be seen that the weakly active galaxies primarily
4576: lie in the spiral and S0 classes, though they are more
4577: strongly weighted to S0s than are the strong emitters,
4578: while the passive galaxies predominantly lie in the E/S0 classes.
4579: (We note in passing that we have visually checked the
4580: emission line galaxies that are morphologically classified as
4581: E, and these classifications are generally robust.)
4582:
4583:
4584: %
4585: % FIGURE 56
4586: %
4587: \begin{inlinefigure}
4588: \figurenum{56}
4589: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f56.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4590: \vskip -0.2cm
4591: \figcaption[]{
4592: Galaxy morphological types (classes $0-8$) vs. mass for
4593: the redshift intervals $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red diamonds)\/},
4594: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}, and
4595: $z=0.9-1.2$ {\em (blue triangles)\/}. For each redshift
4596: range we only show galaxies above our mass completeness
4597: level of $2\times10^9$~M$_\odot$, $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ and
4598: $2\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ respectively. In each redshift
4599: interval the large symbols show the median values for
4600: that mass interval with 68\% confidence limits.
4601: The error bars are generally one morphological class
4602: or less which can result in an asymmetrical appearance.
4603: \label{mass_morph}
4604: }
4605: \end{inlinefigure}
4606:
4607:
4608: %
4609: % FIGURE 57
4610: %
4611: \begin{inlinefigure}
4612: \figurenum{57}
4613: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f57.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4614: \vskip -0.2cm
4615: \figcaption[]{
4616: Distribution of morphological types for galaxies
4617: in the $z=0.05-0.9$ redshift range with logarithmic masses
4618: $10.5-11$~M$_\odot$. The black solid line shows passive
4619: galaxies with EW(\oii$)<4~$\AA, the red dashed line shows
4620: weakly active galaxies with 4~\AA$~<~$EW(\oii$)<12$~\AA,
4621: and the blue dotted line shows strong emission
4622: line galaxies with EW(\oii$)>12$~\AA.
4623: \label{ewo2_morph_dist}
4624: }
4625: \end{inlinefigure}
4626:
4627:
4628: %
4629: % FIGURE 58
4630: %
4631: \begin{figure*}
4632: \figurenum{58}
4633: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f58a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
4634: \psfig{figure=f58b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4635: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f58c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
4636: \psfig{figure=f58d.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4637: \vskip -0.2cm
4638: \figcaption[]{
4639: Build-up of the mass density per unit logarithmic mass
4640: for the redshift intervals $z=0.9-1.2$ {\em (blue triangles)\/},
4641: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}, and $z=0.05-0.475$
4642: {\em (red diamonds)\/} and for the morphological classes
4643: (a) E (class 0), (b) S0 (classes $1-2$), (c) Spirals (classes $3-5$),
4644: and (d) Peculiars (classes 6 and 8).
4645: \label{evol_morph_mass}
4646: }
4647: \end{figure*}
4648:
4649:
4650: In Figure~\ref{evol_morph_mass} we show the build-up of the
4651: mass density per unit logarithmic mass as a function of redshift
4652: and galaxy type. We have separated the E/S0 class into E (class
4653: 0) and S0 (classes $1-2$) classes, though if we instead separate
4654: it into E (class $0-1$) and S0 (class 2) classes, it does not
4655: change our conclusions. Here it can be seen that both the E
4656: (Fig.~\ref{evol_morph_mass}a) and S0 (Fig.~\ref{evol_morph_mass}b)
4657: classes are building up strongly in the $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$
4658: interval, while the Spirals (Fig.~\ref{evol_morph_mass}c)
4659: and Peculiars (Fig.~\ref{evol_morph_mass}d) are not changing
4660: significantly. When we further separate the E/S0 galaxies by
4661: the EW(\oii), we find that all of the growth is in the passive
4662: or weakly active galaxies.
4663:
4664: Thus, it appears that the mass build-up is primarily moving into
4665: elliptical and S0 galaxies. In other words, mass formation
4666: occurs in the spiral galaxies, and the spiral galaxies
4667: gradually move into the E/S0 class with decreasing redshift as the
4668: overall star formation dies away. This results in the mass function
4669: of the strong emitters and spiral galaxies being relatively
4670: invariant and the mass build-up being primarily seen in the
4671: passive and weakly active E/S0 galaxies.
4672:
4673:
4674: \subsection{Galaxy Environments}
4675: \label{secenv}
4676:
4677: As described in \S\ref{secgalenv}, we use the projected
4678: nearest neighbor density, $\Sigma_3$, to characterize the
4679: galaxy environment. In order to provide a uniform sample
4680: with a sufficiently high density to minimize edge effects,
4681: we use the galaxy sample with masses greater than
4682: $2\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ to compute $\Sigma_3$.
4683: This restricts our analysis to the redshift range $z=0.3-1.2$.
4684: The lower redshift bound is set by the size of the field and our
4685: edge restriction (objects must be more than 1~Mpc from the
4686: field edge), and the upper redshift bound is set by the mass limit
4687: of the sample. The average density is $\Sigma_3=0.96$~Mpc$^{-2}$,
4688: and very few objects have densities less than 0.3~Mpc$^{-2}$,
4689: where edge effects begin to enter. (A $4\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
4690: sample gives an average $\Sigma_3=0.31$\ Mpc$^{-2}$, where this
4691: issue would be more significant.)
4692:
4693:
4694: %
4695: % FIGURE 59
4696: %
4697: \begin{inlinefigure}
4698: \figurenum{59}
4699: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f59.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4700: \vskip -0.2cm
4701: \figcaption[]{
4702: Galaxies in the $z=1.0156$ sheet in the GOODS-N region are shown
4703: by the red squares (large symbols correspond to galaxies
4704: with masses above $2\times10^{11}$~M$_\odot$; small
4705: symbols to lower mass galaxies). The full region of the
4706: field is shown by the black rectangle. The galaxies
4707: with measured $\Sigma_3$ are shown with small black squares.
4708: This region is smaller than the full field because of the edge
4709: constraint. Galaxies in the velocity slice with $\Sigma_3>3$~Mpc$^{-2}$
4710: are shown enclosed in green squares.
4711: The large blue symbol shows the position of
4712: the diffuse X-ray emission from Bauer et al.\ (2002).
4713: \label{goods_group}
4714: }
4715: \end{inlinefigure}
4716:
4717:
4718: Nearly all of the sources with $\Sigma_3>5$\ Mpc$^{-2}$ lie
4719: in just four velocity sheets at $z=0.4851$,\ 0.8472,\ 0.9367,\
4720: and 1.0156. The strongest of these is the well-known structure
4721: at $z=1.0156$, which we illustrate in Figure~\ref{goods_group}
4722: {\em (red squares)\/}. This feature is dominated by a fairly
4723: substantial cluster lying at the southern end of the GOODS-N region,
4724: together with a smaller concentrated group to the north. We have
4725: identified 29 galaxies in the southern cluster with masses above
4726: $2\times10^{10}$~M$_\odot$. The total stellar mass of
4727: these 29 galaxies alone is $4\times10^{12}$~M$_\odot$.
4728: The velocity dispersion is 470~km~s$^{-1}$. There is
4729: associated diffuse X-ray emission centered on one part of the
4730: cluster (Bauer et al.\ 2002) {\em (blue square)\/}.
4731: Within the region where the density parameter can be measured,
4732: nearly all of the galaxies at $z=1.0156$ lie in substantially
4733: overdense regions with $\Sigma_3>3~$Mpc$^{-2}$
4734: {\em (green squares)\/}. The other sheets are weaker
4735: and, in some cases (e.g., the $z=0.8472$ structure), more diffuse.
4736:
4737: Because the redshift intervals have different mass limits,
4738: it is most natural to plot the density parameter versus mass.
4739: In Figure~\ref{mass_dens} we show this relation for the redshift
4740: intervals $z=0.9-1.2$ {\em (blue triangles)\/},
4741: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}, and $z=0.3-0.475$
4742: {\em (red diamonds)\/}.
4743: The mass-density relation is clearly
4744: seen in the median values {\em (large symbols)\/}.
4745: At lower masses (below $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$) the dependence
4746: on the environment is very weak. However, nearly all of the
4747: most massive galaxies lie in higher density regions. There is
4748: relatively little evolution in the mass-density relation
4749: over the $z=0.05-0.9$ redshift range.
4750:
4751:
4752: %
4753: % FIGURE 60
4754: %
4755: \begin{inlinefigure}
4756: \figurenum{60}
4757: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f60.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4758: \vskip -0.2cm
4759: \figcaption[]{
4760: $\Sigma_3$ density parameter vs. stellar mass for the redshift
4761: intervals $z=0.9-1.2$ {\em (blue triangles)\/},
4762: $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black squares)\/}, and $z=0.3-0.475$
4763: {\em (red diamonds)\/}. In each case the large symbols
4764: show the median values for the mass intervals with 68\%
4765: confidence limits.
4766: \label{mass_dens}
4767: }
4768: \end{inlinefigure}
4769:
4770:
4771: While this relationship is well known in general terms,
4772: it is not easy to compare it precisely with other results,
4773: either because the environmental parameters are expressed
4774: in different ways, or because the increases are
4775: measured for optical luminosity rather than for mass
4776: (e.g., Croton et al.\ 2005; Hoyle et al.\ 2005;
4777: Cooper et al.\ 2007, 2008). However, Baldry et al.\ (2006)
4778: provide a local analysis of the galaxy masses using
4779: a similar environmental parameter.
4780: They characterize their Schechter function fits to
4781: the galaxy mass functions in different environments
4782: with the mass at which the contribution to
4783: the local galaxy mass density per dex in galaxy mass peaks.
4784: They show in their Figure~8d how this peak mass depends
4785: on $\Sigma$.
4786: We have measured this quantity for our $z=0.6-1.2$
4787: sample and show the result in Figure~\ref{mass_dens_plot}.
4788: In order to compare with Baldry et al.\ (2006)
4789: {\em (blue solid line)\/}, we have adjusted their Kroupa
4790: masses to Salpeter masses, and we have matched their median
4791: $\Sigma$ parameter to ours. We see from
4792: Figure~\ref{mass_dens_plot} that the mass
4793: versus $\Sigma_3$ relation has a very similar slope at both
4794: redshifts but that the mass in a given environment
4795: is about 0.3~dex higher at $z=0.9-1.2$ than it is now.
4796: This is expected, since the high-mass galaxies are
4797: already in place at the higher redshifts, while the
4798: low-mass galaxies are still forming. However,
4799: it shows that this relative growth of the low-mass
4800: galaxies is occurring across our measured density
4801: range and is not a strong function of environment.
4802:
4803:
4804: %
4805: % FIGURE 61
4806: %
4807: \begin{inlinefigure}
4808: \figurenum{61}
4809: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f61.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4810: \vskip -0.2cm
4811: \figcaption[]{
4812: Mass at which contribution to the mass density per
4813: dex in galaxy mass peaks vs. $\Sigma_3$ density parameter.
4814: The black squares show the results from the present data
4815: in the $z=0.9-1.2$ redshift interval. The blue line shows
4816: the corresponding local result derived by Baldry et al.\ (2006).
4817: \label{mass_dens_plot}
4818: }
4819: \end{inlinefigure}
4820:
4821:
4822: However, unlike the local analysis of Baldry et al.\ (2006),
4823: we do not see an environmental dependence for the distribution
4824: of galaxies between the blue cloud and the red sequence at $z=0.6-1.2$.
4825: In Figure~\ref{ub_mass_dens} we show the distribution of colors
4826: for galaxies with $z=0.6-1.2$ separated by both mass and
4827: environment {\em (black histograms)\/}.
4828: We compare this with the distribution of all galaxies in each
4829: mass interval {\em (green curves)\/} normalized to the number of
4830: galaxies in that particular sample {\em (number in upper
4831: right corner)\/}. The blue histograms show sources detected
4832: at $24~\mu$m which dominate the blue cloud at these masses,
4833: and the red histograms show sources which are not detected at
4834: $24~\mu$m which dominate the red sequence.
4835: It can be seen that the distributions are
4836: essentially invariant with environment, while the
4837: fraction of red galaxies increases with mass. Thus,
4838: the environmental dependence of the red fraction seen in the local
4839: sample must have been imprinted over the $z=0-1$ redshift interval.
4840: This suggests that the star formation switch-off may have been
4841: more rapid in the higher density environments.
4842:
4843:
4844: %
4845: % FIGURE 62
4846: %
4847: \begin{figure*}
4848: \figurenum{62}
4849: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f62a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
4850: \psfig{figure=f62b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4851: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f62c.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}
4852: \psfig{figure=f62d.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4853: \figcaption[]{
4854: Distribution of the AB$3400-$AB4500 colors separated by both mass
4855: and environment for galaxies with $z=0.6-1.2$ {\em (solid black
4856: histogram)\/}. In (a) and (b) we show the distributions for
4857: the mass interval $2\times10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$.
4858: In (c) and (d) we show the distributions for the mass
4859: interval $10^{11}-10^{12}$~M$_\odot$.
4860: (a) and (c) correspond to $\Sigma_3<1$~Mpc$^{-2}$,
4861: and (b) and (d) correspond to $\Sigma_3$ greater than this value.
4862: The green curves show the distributions of all galaxies in the
4863: given mass interval normalized to the number of galaxies in that
4864: particular sample, which is shown in the upper right corner. The
4865: red (blue) histograms show the distribution of galaxies
4866: detected (undetected) at 24~$\mu$m, respectively.
4867: \label{ub_mass_dens}
4868: }
4869: \end{figure*}
4870:
4871:
4872: \subsection{Metal Evolution}
4873: \label{secmetev}
4874:
4875: We show the evolution of the metallicity-mass relation with
4876: redshift in Figure~\ref{tremonti}.
4877: In Figure~\ref{tremonti}a we compare the locally derived
4878: metallicity-mass relation of Tremonti04 {\em (black solid curve)\/}
4879: with our relations derived from the R23 method (using the Tremonti04
4880: calibration) for $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (red)\/}
4881: and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (cyan)\/}.
4882: Since the Tremonti04 masses are computed for the Kroupa (2001)
4883: IMF, we had to increase them by a factor of 1.54 to make the comparison
4884: (see \S\ref{secintro}). As we have discussed in \S\ref{secintro},
4885: the adopted IMF does not otherwise affect the results.
4886: We show both the polynomial fits to the metallicity-mass relations
4887: {\em (colored lines)\/} and the median values and errors in various
4888: mass bins {\em (symbols)\/}.
4889:
4890:
4891: %
4892: % FIGURE 63
4893: %
4894: \begin{inlinefigure}
4895: \figurenum{63}
4896: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f63a.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4897: \vskip -0.6cm
4898: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f63b.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
4899: \vskip -0.2cm
4900: \figcaption[]{
4901: (a) Metallicity-mass relations in the $z=0.05-0.475$
4902: {\em (red triangles)\/} and $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (cyan diamonds)\/}
4903: redshift intervals derived from the R23 method using the Tremonti04
4904: calibration and compared with Tremonti04's local metallicity-mass
4905: relation {\em (black curve)\/}. The colored lines show the
4906: polynomial fits to the individual data points. The solid symbols
4907: show the median values in the mass bins with 68\% confidence limits.
4908: The medians lie slightly higher than the average values represented
4909: by the fits. The dotted red line shows the solar abundance.
4910: The black dashed (dotted) line shows the local relation
4911: reduced by 0.14~dex (0.22~dex) to match the data in the
4912: $z=0.05-0.475$ ($z=0.475-0.9$) interval.
4913: (b) Metallicity-mass relation in the $z=0.05-0.475$ redshift
4914: interval {\em (red solid line and solid triangles)\/} computed
4915: using the \nii/\ha\ diagnostic and compared with the
4916: Shapley et al.\ (2004) measurements of the LBG
4917: sample computed using the same method {\em (solid black region)\/}.
4918: The red dashed line shows the red solid line reduced
4919: by 0.32~dex to match the LBGs. The black curve, the red open
4920: triangles, and the cyan open diamonds are all taken from (a) and
4921: show the R23-based results.
4922: \label{tremonti}
4923: }
4924: \end{inlinefigure}
4925:
4926:
4927: We summarize the decrease in the metallicities with increasing
4928: redshift and decreasing mass in Table~\ref{metal_drop}.
4929: In column~2 we give the average of the Tremonti04 values
4930: for galaxies in the given mass interval, and then in
4931: columns~3 and 4 we give the drop from Tremonti04 to each of
4932: our average values, respectively, for $z=0.05-0.475$ and
4933: $z=0.475-0.9$. The errors are 68\% confidence limits.
4934:
4935: The data are not adequate to determine if the shape of the
4936: local relation has changed with redshift. There are hints
4937: at the $2\sigma$ level that there is less evolution
4938: at the high-mass end, but within the accuracy that can be
4939: obtained with our data, the shape of the metallicity-mass
4940: relation over the observed mass range could be invariant
4941: from $z=0.05-0.9$. However, if we normalize the local relation
4942: to our data at $z=0.05-0.475$ {\em (black dashed curve)\/} and
4943: at $z=0.475-0.9$ {\em (black dotted curve)\/}, then the best
4944: fits show that the metallicity in the $10^{10}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$
4945: interval is lower by $0.10\pm0.04$~dex than the local value at
4946: the median redshift of $0.44$ (low-redshift interval) and
4947: lower by $0.21\pm0.03$~dex than the local value at the median
4948: redshift of $0.75$ (high-redshift interval).
4949:
4950: The conclusion that there is a decrease in the metallicity
4951: at a given mass with increasing redshift from $z=0.05-0.9$
4952: is consistent with previous work, though the precise values
4953: have varied considerably. The most recent work of
4954: Savaglio et al.\ (2005) gives a considerably larger change
4955: in the normalization and also finds a steeper slope at $z\sim0.7$,
4956: namely $12+\log({\rm O/H})=8.84+(0.48\pm0.06)\log M_{10}$,
4957: which may be compared with our relation of
4958: $12+\log({\rm O/H})=8.70+(0.17\pm0.05)\log M_{10}$
4959: (Eq.~\ref{eqr23hizrel_tr}). The Savaglio et al.\ (2005)
4960: relation is fitted over a much wider mass range (down to masses
4961: below $10^{9}$~M$_\odot$) using a sample that is substantially
4962: incomplete and biased towards star formers at the lower
4963: masses. This weights the lower mass bins to lower
4964: metallicities and steepens the fit.
4965:
4966: In Figure~\ref{tremonti}b we compare the median metallicities
4967: {\em (red solid triangles)\/} and the least-square polynomial
4968: fit {\em (red solid line)\/}
4969: computed from the \nii/\ha\ method in the $z=0.05-0.475$
4970: redshift interval with the $z\sim2.1$ Lyman break galaxy
4971: (LBG) sample of Shapley et al.\ (2004), which was also computed
4972: using this diagnostic {\em (black solid region)\/}.
4973: The R23-based measurements from Figure~\ref{tremonti}a are
4974: also shown {\em (black curve and colored open symbols)\/}.
4975: The R23-based red open triangles for the same redshift interval
4976: are not significantly different than the \nii/\ha-based red
4977: solid triangles. The LBG galaxies lie about 0.32~dex
4978: lower {\em (dashed red line)\/} than the median $z=0.44$
4979: galaxies {\em (red solid line)\/}
4980: at the same mass and are similar in metallicity to
4981: local galaxies that are almost an order of magnitude lower in mass.
4982:
4983:
4984: \subsection{Gas Masses}
4985: \label{secgasmass}
4986:
4987: In the simplest closed-box model for metal evolution,
4988: the metallicity $Z$(O) (the fraction by mass of O)
4989: in the gas is simply related to the oxygen yield $y$(O)
4990: by the well-known relation
4991: %
4992: \begin{equation}
4993: Z({\rm O}) = y({\rm O})~\log(M_{g}/M_{T}) \,,
4994: \label{meteq}
4995: \end{equation}
4996: %
4997: where $M_{g}$ is the gas mass and $M_{T}$ is
4998: the sum of the gas mass and the stellar mass.
4999: The change in metallicity for a change in stellar
5000: mass is
5001: %
5002: \begin{equation}
5003: \delta Z({\rm O}) = y({\rm O})~\delta M_{star}/M_{g} \,.
5004: \label{deriveq}
5005: \end{equation}
5006: %
5007: Thus, the derivative of $Z$(O) with respect to the stellar
5008: mass measures the quantity $y$(O)/$M_{g}$, and, if we
5009: assume a value for the yield, we can derive the
5010: gas mass. Essentially we are measuring the gas reservoir
5011: required to dilute the metals returned from the known
5012: star formation to match the observed metal evolution.
5013:
5014: The effective yields
5015: have been empirically measured for local galaxies and are
5016: found to be approximately independent of galaxy mass for
5017: masses above $10^{9.5}$~M$_\odot$ (Garnett 2003).
5018: Tremonti04 find a weak dependence on mass in this mass range,
5019: but their results depend on using star formation as a proxy
5020: for gas mass. We will assume a time-independent and
5021: mass-independent value of $\log y({\rm O})=-1.9$, which
5022: is probably a reasonable approximation given the uncertainties.
5023:
5024: We roughly compute the gas reservoir mass densities using the
5025: mass change between $z=0.05$ and $z=0.77$ from the least-square
5026: fits of Equations~\ref{massint2}$-$\ref{massint4} and
5027: the corresponding change in $Z$(O) from Table~1.
5028: For the lowest logarithmic mass interval $9.5-10$~M$_\odot$
5029: we made the fit over $z=0.05-0.44$,
5030: where the mass sample is complete. If the local
5031: mass density is lower than the Cole01 estimate this would
5032: reduce $\delta M_{star}$ and hence the inferred gas mass.
5033: Deriving the values from
5034: the star formation instead gives broadly similar results,
5035: with the largest change being an increase by almost a factor
5036: of two in $M_g$ in the logarithmic mass interval
5037: $10-10.5$~M$_\odot$.
5038:
5039:
5040: %
5041: % FIGURE 64
5042: %
5043: \begin{inlinefigure}
5044: \figurenum{64}
5045: \centerline{\psfig{figure=f64.ps,angle=90,width=3.5in}}
5046: \vskip -0.2cm
5047: \figcaption[]{
5048: Mass density of the gas reservoirs
5049: inferred from the metal evolution compared with
5050: the stellar mass density history.
5051: The mass density of the gas reservoirs is shown
5052: with colored lines, and the stellar mass density
5053: history is shown with corresponding colored symbols
5054: in the mass intervals $10^{9.5}-10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
5055: {\em (blue line and triangles)\/},
5056: $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$
5057: {\em (black dashed line and open squares)\/},
5058: $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ {\em (black solid line and solid squares)\/},
5059: and $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$ {\em (red line and diamonds)\/}.
5060: The gas mass densities are computed over $z=0.05-0.77$
5061: for the higher mass intervals and over $z=0.05-0.44$
5062: for the lowest mass interval. The local mass densities
5063: for each of the mass intervals were obtained by
5064: integrating the Cole01 function.
5065: \label{mgas_byz}
5066: }
5067: \end{inlinefigure}
5068:
5069:
5070: We compare the gas mass densities {\em (colored lines)\/} with the
5071: stellar mass density history {\em (corresponding colored
5072: symbols)\/} for the mass intervals $10^{9.5}-10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
5073: {\em (blue line and triangles)\/}, $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$
5074: {\em (black dashed line and open squares)\/},
5075: $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$
5076: {\em (black solid line and solid squares)\/},
5077: and $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$
5078: {\em (red line and diamonds)\/}
5079: in Figure~\ref{mgas_byz}.
5080: (The gas and stellar mass densities are derived
5081: using the Salpeter IMF and thus will change consistently if
5082: we use an alternate IMF.) In the highest mass interval {\em (red)\/}
5083: where the stellar mass is growing only slowly, the sum of
5084: the gas plus stellar mass densities at $z=0.44$
5085: is roughly comparable to the local stellar mass density
5086: obtained by integrating the Cole01 function.
5087: By contrast, the galaxes in the lower mass intervals
5088: where assembly is still progressing have much larger gas reservoirs.
5089: Thus, these results suggest that star formation is terminating
5090: as a consequence of gas depletion.
5091:
5092: We estimate the total gas mass density over all galaxies
5093: larger than $10^{9.5}$~M$_\odot$ at $z=0.44$ to be
5094: $\sim7\times10^{8}$~M$_\odot$~Mpc$^{-3}$. We can compare this
5095: with the current mass density in stars over the same mass range,
5096: namely $4.7\times10^{8}$~M$_\odot$~Mpc$^{-3}$
5097: obtained by integrating Cole01. This suggests that
5098: there is still a significant amount of gas mass to be converted
5099: into stars. From Figure~\ref{mgas_byz} we can see that this
5100: principally lies in galaxies with masses below $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$.
5101: We may very crudely infer
5102: that at the present time the highest mass galaxies
5103: will have very little gas mass remaining, while the lower
5104: mass galaxies will have comparable amounts of gas and stars.
5105: However, the uncertainties in this are very large, both from
5106: the observations and from the overly simple modeling.
5107:
5108:
5109: \section{Summary}
5110: \label{seccon}
5111:
5112: We have used a very large and highly spectroscopically
5113: complete galaxy sample selected by rest-frame NIR bolometric
5114: flux to conduct an integrated study of star formation
5115: and galactic stellar mass assembly from $z=0.05-1.5$ and
5116: galactic metallicity evolution from $z=0.05-0.9$. We summarize
5117: our results below.
5118:
5119: $\bullet$ We constructed a rest-frame NIR ($0.8-2.4~\mu$m)
5120: bolometric flux sample in the GOODS-N field.
5121: We have spectroscopic redshifts and high-quality
5122: spectra for 77\% of the galaxies in the sample, and we measured
5123: 13-band photometric redshifts for the remaining sources.
5124: Since most of the sources with only photometric redshifts
5125: lie outside of our two redshift ranges of interest, the
5126: spectroscopic completeness inside these ranges is extremely
5127: high ($>91$\% for $z=0.05-0.9$ and $>84$\% for $z=0.05-1.5$).
5128:
5129: $\bullet$ We constructed four uniform NIR luminosity samples
5130: for our mass assembly analysis (two at lower redshifts,
5131: $z=0.05-0.475$ and $z=0.05-0.9$, which we also use for
5132: our metallicity analysis, and two at higher redshifts,
5133: $z=0.9-1.2$ and $z=1.2-1.5$) and fitted BC03
5134: models (assuming a Salpeter IMF, a solar metallicity,
5135: and a Calzetti extinction law) to every galaxy to obtain
5136: galactic stellar masses and extinctions. We tested
5137: the extinctions by comparing the extinguished UV light, which
5138: is reradiated into the FIR, with the 24~$\mu$m light, which
5139: is a completely independent measure of the dust-reradiated
5140: light. We detected at 24~$\mu$m most of the sources with
5141: large reradiated fluxes, confirming the assignment of
5142: substantial extinctions. However, some of the 24~$\mu$m sources
5143: had low reradiated UV fluxes. To test whether we were
5144: failing to assign extinctions to these galaxies, we also measured,
5145: where possible, $f($\ha$)/f($\hb$)$ for them. In all cases these
5146: Balmer ratio measurements were also consistent with little extinction.
5147:
5148: $\bullet$ We adopted a maximum ratio of the stellar mass to
5149: the observed NIR luminosity of $10^{-33}~$M$_\odot/$ergs~s$^{-1}$.
5150: Multiplying the NIR luminosity limits of the four samples by
5151: this ratio, we found that the samples included all galaxies
5152: with masses above $2\times 10^9$~M$_\odot$ ($z=0.05-0.475$),
5153: $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ ($z=0.05-0.9$), $2\times 10^{10}$~M$_\odot$
5154: ($z=0.9-1.2$), and $3\times 10^{10}$~M$_\odot$ ($z=1.2-1.5$).
5155:
5156: $\bullet$ For each galaxy spectrum we measured the equivalent
5157: widths of a standard set of lines. We found a strong trend
5158: to higher EWs at lower NIR luminosities. We also found a rapid
5159: drop in EWs at lower redshifts.
5160: We estimated a fixed offset of 1~\AA\ to correct the EW(\hb)
5161: for the effects of underlying stellar absorption, having found
5162: no strong dependence of the correction on galaxy type.
5163:
5164: $\bullet$ We measured the line fluxes (calibrated by broadband
5165: fluxes) and the 4000~\AA\ break strengths in the galaxies.
5166: We measured the offsets between the rest-frame $3400-4500$~\AA\
5167: magnitudes measured from the spectra and those measured from
5168: the photometry and found no dependence on redshift. Thus,
5169: there are no relative errors in the photometric calibration
5170: of the UV and optical data.
5171:
5172: $\bullet$ Although we can only measure Balmer ratio
5173: extinctions for our line fluxes using our lowest
5174: redshift sample, we found that when we compared these extinctions
5175: to the continuum extinctions that we obtained from our BC03 fits,
5176: the two were consistent, on average, within the errors. Thus,
5177: we can (and do) use the BC03 extinctions to deredden the line
5178: fluxes at higher redshifts.
5179:
5180: $\bullet$ We calibrated the star formation diagnostics
5181: internally using our lowest redshift sample. We found that
5182: the UV flux had a somewhat tighter relation to the \ha\ flux
5183: than the \oii\ flux did and hence provided a better estimate
5184: of the SFR. We also saw this in the systematic dependence
5185: of the \oii\ SFR on galaxy properties, such as
5186: the \ha\ SFR of the galaxy and the galaxy mass. We adopted
5187: the UV SFR calibration as our primary calibration.
5188:
5189: $\bullet$ Because it has become common in the literature to
5190: use 24~$\mu$m data to estimate SFRs, we also computed SFRs
5191: from our 24~$\mu$m fluxes and compared them with the reradiated
5192: SFRs that we determined from our UV luminosities. (The
5193: latter were obtained by taking the difference between the SFRs
5194: that we computed after correcting for extinction and the SFRs
5195: that we computed without making an extinction correction.)
5196: Although we found a substantial spread for the individual
5197: determinations, the two methods give good agreement when
5198: applied to the galaxy population as a whole.
5199:
5200: $\bullet$ We constructed a number of emission line
5201: diagnostics for our $z=0.05-0.475$ sample, since many of
5202: the spectra cover all of the emission lines from \oii\ to
5203: \sii. We dereddened all of the line fluxes using our BC03
5204: extinctions. Adopting various calibrations from the literature,
5205: we derived metallicities from the N2O2, NH, and R23 diagnostic
5206: ratios, and we derived ionization parameters from the combination
5207: of O32, which has a dependence on $q$ and metallicity, and N202
5208: or R23.
5209: For $z=0.475-0.9$ we could only compute R23 from the optical
5210: spectra. We compared the metallicity-mass relations that we
5211: derived from R23 for the two redshift intervals (restricting
5212: to masses above $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$, where both samples are
5213: complete, and below $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$) and found that,
5214: within the wide errors, the slopes were consistent.
5215: We also found that the median metallicity increased by 0.13~dex
5216: as the redshift decreased from median redshift 0.75 to median
5217: redshift 0.44.
5218:
5219: $\bullet$ We determined that only about 20\%$-$30\% of the
5220: total galaxy mass density is included in our strong emission
5221: line metallicity analysis. We divided the remaining galaxies
5222: into an apparently passive category and a weakly active
5223: category. About 40\% of the total galaxy mass density is
5224: contained in the passive population, and the majority of
5225: the massive galaxies ($>10^{11}$~M$_\odot$) fall into this
5226: category. Due to a lack of \hb\ and \oiii\ features in
5227: the stacked spectrum for the passive galaxies, there was no
5228: way we could use the gaseous emission to estimate
5229: metallicities. However, we were able to estimate metallicities
5230: from the stacked spectrum for the weakly active galaxies.
5231: As a check on how well we could do this, we also
5232: estimated metallicities from the stacked spectrum for the
5233: strong emission line galaxies. For $z=0.05-0.475$ these
5234: estimates were in good agreement with the fit that we had made
5235: to the individual measurements, while for $z=0.475-0.9$ they
5236: were about 0.1~dex higher on average. The metallicity estimates
5237: from the stacked spectrum for the weakly active galaxies showed
5238: substantial scatter but were in broad agreement with the strong
5239: emission line galaxies, so we subsequently assumed that they
5240: paralleled the evolution of the strong emission line galaxies.
5241:
5242: $\bullet$ We constructed galactic stellar mass functions and
5243: compared them with the local mass function of Cole01.
5244: We found that the galaxy number densities at the low-mass
5245: end are still rising down to the lowest redshift interval,
5246: while the number densities at the high-mass end
5247: ($>10^{11}$~M$_\odot$) are changing much more slowly over
5248: $z=0.05-1.5$. We provided parametric fits to the data by
5249: assuming a Schechter form for the mass functions. We found
5250: a significant evolution in the mean mass (a rise in either
5251: $M_\star$ or $\alpha$ with increasing redshift) due to the
5252: build-up of the low-mass region of the galactic stellar mass
5253: function relative to the high-mass region.
5254:
5255: $\bullet$ We determined the mass density evolution by mass
5256: interval and compared them with the local mass densities
5257: obtained by integrating the Cole01 function over each mass
5258: interval. We found slow
5259: growth in the higher mass intervals and more rapid growth
5260: in the lower mass intervals. To quantify the results, we
5261: made least-square polynomial fits to the logarithmic
5262: stellar mass densities versus the logarithmic cosmic time.
5263: We found that the low-mass ranges ($<10^{11}$~M$_\odot$)
5264: are growing approximately linearly with time, while the
5265: high-mass ranges are growing more slowly.
5266:
5267: $\bullet$ We computed the universal star formation history
5268: from $z=0.05-1$ from our NIR sample. We calculated the SFRDs
5269: using our empirical calibrations and our extinction corrected
5270: \hb\ and UV luminosities.
5271: We found good agreement with the values derived from
5272: radio and submillimeter data. The SFRDs for the NIR sample
5273: drop steeply at lower redshifts, where most of the star
5274: formation is seen as direct UV emission from lower mass
5275: galaxies, which have very small extinctions. Thus, we also
5276: calculated the SFRDs from our extinction uncorrected data,
5277: which we found agreed well with rest-frame UV flux
5278: measurements of UV selected galaxies. Finally, to check
5279: our UV extinction corrections, we added
5280: the SFRDs that we computed from the 24~$\mu$m fluxes
5281: for the obscured star formation to the SFRDs that we computed
5282: from the extinction uncorrected \oii\ luminosities for the
5283: unobscured star formation. This method has no dependence
5284: on the UV extinction corrections. Reassuringly, when we compared
5285: these SFRDs by mass interval with those calculated from
5286: the UV-based method, we found very similar results.
5287:
5288: $\bullet$ We compared the expected formed stellar mass density
5289: growth rates produced by star formation (computed with the
5290: conservation equation using both the UV-based and the
5291: 24~$\mu$m$+$\oii-based SFRDs) with those measured
5292: from the formed stellar mass functions. Here the
5293: formed stellar mass density is the total mass density
5294: formed into stars prior to stellar mass loss.
5295: We found amazing agreement over a wide range of redshifts
5296: and masses, though there is a slight normalization
5297: difference between the two measurements (the measurements
5298: based on the star formation are higher). We explored various
5299: possibilities to explain the offset, and we concluded that the
5300: most likely explanation is that we need an IMF which is more
5301: heavily weighted to mid-mass stars than the Salpeter, Kroupa,
5302: and Chabrier IMFs. Over the $1-100$~M$_\odot$ range, a broken
5303: power law with an index of $-1.10$ below 10~M$_\odot$ and
5304: $-1.60$ above works well. This is well within the range of
5305: uncertainty in the high-mass IMF and may be favored for
5306: other reasons (Fardal et al.\ 2007).
5307:
5308: $\bullet$ We obtained a quantitative description of the
5309: range of behaviors in the galaxies by computing the
5310: instantaneous SSFRs. There is a wide spread in
5311: the SSFRs at all redshifts and masses. However, from
5312: the mean SSFRs we found that, on average, only galaxies with
5313: masses $\lesssim 10^{11}$~M$_\odot$ grow significantly in any
5314: of the redshift intervals. In the lowest redshift
5315: interval where we can measure the masses below $10^{10}$~M$_\odot$,
5316: we finally saw the flattening of the SSFRs (at a high level).
5317: From the distribution functions of the SSFRs by
5318: mass interval, we concluded that what star formation is
5319: occurring in the galaxies in the $10^{11}-10^{11.5}$~M$_\odot$
5320: interval is spread over many galaxies, and there are very few
5321: galaxies in this mass interval that are undergoing significant
5322: growth. In contrast, in the $10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$
5323: interval a substantial number of galaxies have SSFRs that,
5324: if maintained over the time frame, would change their
5325: mass significantly.
5326:
5327: $\bullet$ We examined the rest-frame UV$-$blue (AB3400$-$AB4500)
5328: colors uncorrected for extinction for our NIR sample and
5329: found almost no evolution with redshift and a uniform spread of
5330: colors stretching from the blue cloud to the red sequence. Nearly
5331: all of the galaxies in the intermediate color range (sometimes
5332: referred to as the green valley) are 24~$\mu$m sources.
5333: After correcting for extinction, we found that the bulk of the
5334: 24~$\mu$m sources lie in the blue cloud. We also then saw a more
5335: clearly bimodal distribution in the total sample.
5336: Applying extinction corrections is critical when analyzing the
5337: galaxy colors, since many of the sources seen in the green
5338: valley and the red sequence prior to correcting for
5339: extinction are dusty sources with intrinsically blue colors.
5340: In contrast to literature results from optically-selected
5341: and extinction uncorrected data, we saw no change in the position
5342: of the red sequence with redshift in our extinction corrected
5343: data. Thus, the intrinsic colors of the reddest galaxies are not
5344: changing over $z=0.05-1.5$.
5345:
5346: $\bullet$ We approximately separated the red sequence from the
5347: blue cloud using a cut 0.25~mag below the red sequence. We
5348: also separated the red sequence from the blue cloud using the
5349: EW(\oii), which is independent of the extinction correction,
5350: and the 4000~\AA\ break strength, which is nearly independent.
5351: Although we found comparable amounts of mass in the red sequence
5352: and the blue cloud, the growth in the mass density is primarily
5353: occurring in the red sequence galaxies with masses
5354: $10^{10.5}-10^{11}$~M$_\odot$.
5355:
5356: $\bullet$ We investigated how star formation is occurring
5357: using the extinction corrected rest-frame AB3400$-$AB8140
5358: colors and the rest-frame EW(\hb). The EW(\hb) is produced by
5359: higher mass stars and thus fades more rapidly, providing a
5360: well-known age signature. We compared the data with some
5361: evolutionary tracks from the BC03 models and found consistency
5362: with episodic star formation in all but the lowest mass
5363: ($10^{10}-10^{10.5}$~M$_\odot$) galaxies, where there may be a
5364: mixture of smooth and episodic star formation. It appears
5365: that the burst process results in the dusty galaxies
5366: producing the 24~$\mu$m emission.
5367:
5368: $\bullet$ We compared the morphological types with the
5369: spectral characteristics of the galaxies. We found no change
5370: in the distribution of the morphological types in the 4000~\AA\
5371: break-EW(\hb) plane over $z=0.05-0.9$. We confirmed a strong
5372: correlation between the galaxy morphology and the galaxy mass,
5373: with many of the most massive galaxies being E/S0 galaxies.
5374: We saw very little change in the mass function of the
5375: strong emitters and spiral galaxies. Instead we saw the mass
5376: build-up primarily occurring in the passive and weakly active E/S0
5377: galaxies. We concluded that galaxies are moving from spiral
5378: galaxy types to E/S0 types with decreasing redshift and that
5379: the decrease in the mass of the blue cloud from this effect
5380: offsets the growth due to star formation.
5381:
5382: $\bullet$ We found that massive galaxies ($>10^{11}$~M$_\odot$)
5383: preferentially occur in higher density environments, but below
5384: this mass we saw relatively little dependence on the environment.
5385: We also found relatively little evolution in this
5386: mass-density relation over the $z=0.05-0.9$ redshift range.
5387:
5388: $\bullet$ We found that the metallicities of galaxies are increasing
5389: with decreasing redshift at all galaxy masses over $z=0-0.9$.
5390: The increase is $0.21\pm0.03$~dex between $z=0.75$ and $z=0$.
5391: We compared this with the metal release rate from star formation
5392: to make a crude estimate of the gas mass reservoirs in the galaxies
5393: using a simple closed box model. We found that for mass intervals
5394: below $10^{11}$~M$_\odot$, where assembly is still progressing,
5395: the gas reservoirs are larger than are needed to assemble the
5396: present-day stellar mass densities.
5397:
5398:
5399: \acknowledgements
5400: We thank J.~S.~Gallagher for interesting conversations
5401: and a critical reading of the paper. We also thank
5402: the anonymous referee for an extremely helpful report
5403: with many useful suggestions for improving the paper.
5404: We gratefully acknowledge support from NSF grants
5405: AST 0407374 and AST 0709356 (L.~L.~C.) and
5406: AST 0239425 and AST 0708793 (A.~J.~B),
5407: the University of Wisconsin Research Committee with funds
5408: granted by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (A.~J.~B.),
5409: and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (A.~J.~B.).
5410:
5411:
5412: \begin{references}
5413:
5414: \reference{alex03}
5415: Alexander, D. M., et al.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 539
5416:
5417: \reference{asplund04}
5418: Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A.J., Allende Prieto, C.,
5419: \& Kiselman, D.\ 2004, A\&A, 417, 751
5420:
5421: \reference{baldry03}
5422: Baldry, I. K., \& Glazebrook, K.\ 2003, \apj, 593, 258
5423:
5424: \reference{baldry06}
5425: Baldry, I. K., Balogh, M. L., Bower, R. G., Glazebrook, K.,
5426: Nichol, R. C., Bamford, S. P., \& Budavari, T.\ 2006,
5427: \mnras, 373, 469
5428:
5429: \reference{baldry04}
5430: Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkmann, J., Ivezi{\'c}, Z.,
5431: Lupton, R. H., Nichol, R. C., \& Szalay, A. S.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 681
5432:
5433: \reference{barbaro97}
5434: Barbaro, G, \& Poggianti, B. M.\ 1997, A\&A, 324, 490
5435:
5436: \reference{barger05}
5437: Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L., Mushotzky, R. F., Yang, Y., Wang, W.-H.,
5438: Steffen, A. T., \& Capak, P.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 578
5439:
5440: \reference{barger00}
5441: Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L., \& Richards, E. A.\ 2000,
5442: \aj, 119, 2092
5443:
5444: \reference{barger07}
5445: Barger, A. J., Cowie, L. L., \& Wang, W.-H.\ 2007, \apj, 654, 764
5446:
5447: \reference{bauer05}
5448: Bauer, A., Drory, N., Hill, G.J., and Feulner, G.\ 2005, \apj, 621, L89
5449:
5450: \reference{bauer02}
5451: Bauer, F. E., et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 1163
5452:
5453: \reference{bell03}
5454: Bell, E. F., McIntosh, D. H., Katz, N., \& Weinberg, M. D.\ 2003,
5455: \apjs, 149, 289
5456:
5457: \reference{bell04}
5458: Bell, E. F., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 608, 752
5459:
5460: \reference{bell05}
5461: Bell, E. F., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 625, 23
5462:
5463: \reference{bell07}
5464: Bell, E. F., Zheng, X. Z., Papovich, C., Borch, A., Wolf, C.,
5465: \& Meisenheimer, K.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 834
5466:
5467: \reference{borch06}
5468: Borch, A., et al.\ 2006, A\&A, 453, 869
5469:
5470: \reference{be00}
5471: Brinchmann, J., \& Ellis, R. S.\ 2000, \apj, 536, L77
5472:
5473: \reference{br04}
5474: Brinchmann, J., et al.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, 1151
5475:
5476: \reference{bc03}
5477: Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000 (BC03)
5478:
5479: \reference{b07}
5480: Bruzual, G.\ 2007, in Proc. IAU Symposium No. 241,
5481: Eds. A. Vazdekis and R. Peletier, (Cambridge: CUP)
5482: arXiv:astro-ph/0703052
5483:
5484: \reference{bundy05}
5485: Bundy, K., Ellis, R. S., \& Conselice, C. J.\ 2005,
5486: \apj, 625, 621
5487:
5488: \reference{bundy06}
5489: Bundy, K, et al.\ 2006, \apj, 651, 120
5490:
5491: \reference{calzetti00}
5492: Calzetti, D., Armus, L., Bohlin, R. C., Kinney, A. L.,
5493: Koornneef, J., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T.\ 2000, \apj, 533, 682
5494:
5495: \reference{capak04}
5496: Capak, P., et al.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 180
5497:
5498: \reference{chab03}
5499: Chabrier, G.\ 2003, \apj, 586, L133
5500:
5501: \reference{chap05}
5502: Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W., Smail, I., \& Ivison, R. J.\ 2005,
5503: \apj, 622, 772
5504:
5505: \reference{chap04}
5506: Chapman, S. C., Smail, I., Blain, A. W., \& Ivison, R. J.\ 2004,
5507: \apj, 614, 671
5508:
5509: \reference{cohen96}
5510: Cohen, J. G., Cowie, L. L., Hogg, D. W., Songaila, A.,
5511: Blandford, R., Hu, E. M., \& Shopbell, P.\ 1996, \apj, 471, L5
5512:
5513: \reference{cohen00}
5514: Cohen, J. G., Hogg, D. W., Blandford, R., Cowie, L. L., Hu, E.,
5515: Songaila, A., Shopbell, P., \& Richberg, K.\ 2000, \apj, 538, 29
5516:
5517: \reference{cole01}
5518: Cole, S., et al.\ 2001, \mnras, 326, 255 (Cole01)
5519:
5520: \reference{cons05}
5521: Conselice, C. J., Blackburne, J. A., \& Papovich, C.\ 2005,
5522: \apj, 620, 564
5523:
5524: \reference{cons07}
5525: Conselice, C. J., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 381, 962 (Conselice07)
5526:
5527: \reference{cooper05}
5528: Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Madgwick, D. S., Gerke, B. F., Yan, R.,
5529: \& Davis, M.\ 2005, \apj, 634, 833
5530:
5531: \reference{cooper07}
5532: Cooper, M. C., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 1445
5533: %evol of color-density reln
5534:
5535: \reference{cooper08}
5536: Cooper, M. C., et al.\ 2008, \mnras, 383, 1058
5537: %role of environ in cosmic SFH
5538:
5539: \reference{cowie04}
5540: Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., Hu, E. M., Capak, P., \&
5541: Songaila, A.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3137
5542:
5543: \reference{cowie95}
5544: Cowie, L. L., Hu, E. M., \& Songaila, A.\ 1995, \nat, 377, 603
5545:
5546: \reference{cowie96}
5547: Cowie, L. L., Songaila, A., Hu, E. M., \& Cohen, J. G.\ 1996,
5548: \aj, 112, 839
5549:
5550: \reference{croton05}
5551: Croton, D. J., et al.\ 2005, \mnras, 356, 1155
5552:
5553: \reference{dale02}
5554: Dale, D. A., \& Helou, G.\ 2002, \apj, 576, 159
5555:
5556: \reference{dale05}
5557: Dale, D. A., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 857
5558:
5559: \reference{davis03}
5560: Davis, M., et al.\ 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4834, 161
5561:
5562: \reference{mdick03}
5563: Dickinson, M., Papovich, C., Ferguson, H. C., \& Budav{\'a}ri, T.\ 2003,
5564: \apj, 587, 25
5565:
5566: \reference{dressler80}
5567: Dressler, A.\ 1980, \apj, 236, 351
5568:
5569: \reference{drory04}
5570: Drory, N., Bender, R., Feulner, G., Hopp, U., Maraston, C.,
5571: Snigula, J., \& Hill, G. J.\ 2004, \apj, 608, 742
5572:
5573: \reference{drory05}
5574: Drory, N., Salvato, M., Gabasch, A., Bender, R., Hopp, U.,
5575: Feulner, G., \& Pannella, M.\ 2005, \apj, 619, L131
5576:
5577: \reference{eke05}
5578: Eke, V. R., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., King, H. M.,
5579: \& Peacock, J. A.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 1233
5580:
5581: \reference{elsner08}
5582: Elsner, F., Feulner, G., \& Hopp, U.\ 2008, A\&A, 477, 503
5583:
5584: \reference{faber03}
5585: Faber, S. M., et al.\ 2003, Proc. SPIE, 4841, 1657
5586:
5587: \reference{fardal07}
5588: Fardal, M. A., Katz, N., Weinberg, D. H., \& Dav{\'e}, R.\ 2007,
5589: \mnras, 379, 985
5590:
5591: \reference{felten76}
5592: Felten, J.\ 1976, \apj, 207, 700
5593:
5594: \reference{fontana03}
5595: Fontana, A., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 594, L9
5596:
5597: \reference{fontana04}
5598: Fontana, A., et al.\ 2004, A\&A, 424, 23
5599:
5600: \reference{fontana06}
5601: Fontana, A., et al.\ 2006, A\&A, 459, 745 (Fontana06)
5602:
5603: \reference{giallongo05}
5604: Giallongo, E., Salimbeni, S., Menci, N., Zamorani, G., Fontana, A.,
5605: Dickinson, M., Cristiani, S., \& Pozzetti, L.\ 2005, \apj, 622, 116
5606:
5607: \reference{gia04}
5608: Giavalisco, M., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 600, L93
5609:
5610: \reference{haarsma00}
5611: Haarsma, D. B., Partridge, R. B., Windhorst, R. A.,
5612: \& Richards, E. A.\ 2000, \apj, 544, 641
5613:
5614: \reference{hopkins06}
5615: Hopkins, A. M., \& Beacom 2006, \apj, 651, 142
5616:
5617: \reference{hopkins03}
5618: Hopkins, A. M., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 971
5619:
5620: \reference{hoyle05}
5621: Hoyle, F., Rojas, R. R., Vogeley, M. S., \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2005,
5622: \apj, 620, 618
5623:
5624: \reference{kannappan07}
5625: Kannappan, S. J., \& Gawiser, E.\ 2007, \apj, 657, L5
5626:
5627: \reference{kauff04}
5628: Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., Heckman, T. M., M{\'e}nard, B.,
5629: Brinchmann, J., Charlot, S., Tremonti, C., \& Brinkmann, J.\ 2004,
5630: \mnras, 353, 713
5631:
5632: \reference{kauff03a}
5633: Kauffmann, G., et al.\ 2003a, \mnras, 341, 33
5634: %4000A break and Hdelta to constrain SFHs, dust attenuation, masses
5635:
5636: \reference{kauff03b}
5637: Kauffmann, G., et al.\ 2003b, \mnras, 341, 54
5638: %study relations btwn stellar mass, SFH, size and internal structure
5639:
5640: \reference{kenn98}
5641: Kennicutt, R. C., Jr.\ 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 189
5642:
5643: \reference{kd02}
5644: Kewley, L. J., \& Dopita, M. A.\ 2002, \apjs, 142, 35 (KD02)
5645:
5646: \reference{kew04}
5647: Kewley, L. J., Geller, M. J., \& Jansen, R. A.\ 2004,
5648: \aj, 127, 2002
5649:
5650: \reference{kinney94}
5651: Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bica, E., \& Storchi-Bergmann, T.\ 1994,
5652: \apj, 429, 172
5653:
5654: \reference{kkp99}
5655: Kobulnicky, H. A., Kennicutt, R. C., Pizagno, J. L.\ 1999, \apj, 514, 544
5656:
5657: \reference{kk04}
5658: Kobulnicky, H. A., \& Kewley, L. J.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 240 (KK04)
5659:
5660: \reference{kp03}
5661: Kobulnicky, H. A., \& Phillips, A. C.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 1031
5662:
5663: \reference{ket03}
5664: Kobulnicky, H. A., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 1006
5665:
5666: \reference{kroupa01}
5667: Kroupa, P.\ 2001, \mnras, 323, 331
5668:
5669: \reference{lefloch05}
5670: Le Floc'h, Emeric, et al.\ 2005, \apj, 632, 169
5671:
5672: \reference{liang06}
5673: Liang, Y. C., Hammer, F., \& Flores, H.\ 2006, A\&A, 447, 113
5674:
5675: \reference{lilly03}
5676: Lilly, S. J., Carollo, C. M., \& Stockton, A. N.\ 2003, \apj,
5677: 597, 730
5678:
5679: \reference{lilly96}
5680: Lilly, S. J., Le F{\`e}vre, O., Hammer, F., \& Crampton, D.\ 1996,
5681: \apj, 460, L1
5682:
5683: \reference{madau96}
5684: Madau, P., Ferguson, H. C., Dickinson, M. E., Giavalisco, M.,
5685: Steidel, C. C., \& Fruchter, A.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, 1388
5686:
5687: \reference{maraston05}
5688: Maraston, C.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 799
5689:
5690: \reference{marcillac}
5691: Marcillac, D., Elbaz, D., Chary, R. R., Dickinson, M.,
5692: Galliano, F., \& Morrison, G.\ 2006, A\&A, 451, 57
5693:
5694: \reference{mcgaugh91}
5695: McGaugh, S.\ 1991, \apj, 380, 140
5696:
5697: \reference{mouhcine}
5698: Mouhcine, M., Lewis, I., Jones, B., Lamareille, F., Maddox, S. J.,
5699: \& Contini, T.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 1143
5700:
5701: \reference{mous06}
5702: Moustakas, J., Kennicutt, R. C., Jr., \& Tremonti, C. A.\ 2006,
5703: \apj, 642, 775
5704:
5705: \reference{noeske07}
5706: Noeske, K. G., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 660, L43
5707:
5708: \reference{oke95}
5709: Oke, J. B., et al.\ 1995, \pasp, 107, 375
5710:
5711: \reference{osterbrock89}
5712: Osterbrock, D. E.\ 1989, Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and
5713: Active Galactic Nuclei (Mill Valley, CA: Univ. Sci. Books)
5714:
5715: \reference{pagel79}
5716: Pagel, B. E. J., Edmunds, M. G., Blackwell, D. E., Chun, M. S.,
5717: \& Smith, G.\ 1979, \mnras, 189, 95
5718:
5719: \reference{pannella}
5720: Pannella, M., Hopp, U., Saglia, R. P., Bender, R., Drory, N.,
5721: Salvato, M., Gabasch, A., \& Feulner, G.\ 2006, \apj, 639, L1
5722:
5723: \reference{pap06}
5724: Papovich, C., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 640, 92
5725:
5726: \reference{pg03}
5727: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez, P. G., Gallego, J., Zamorano, J.,
5728: Alonso-Herrero, A., Gil de Paz, A., \& Arag{\'o}n-Salamanca, A.\ 2003,
5729: \apj, 587, L27
5730:
5731: \reference{pg05}
5732: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez, P. G., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 630, 82
5733:
5734: \reference{pg08}
5735: P{\'e}rez-Gonz{\'a}lez, P. G., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 675, 234
5736:
5737: \reference{reddy06}
5738: Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Erb, D. K., Shapley, A. E.,
5739: \& Pettini, M.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 1004
5740:
5741: \reference{reddy08}
5742: Reddy, N. A., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., Adelberger, K. L.,
5743: Shapley, A. E., Erb, D. K., \& Dickinson, M.\ 2008, \apjs, 175, 48
5744:
5745: \reference{richards00}
5746: Richards, E. A.\ 2000, \apj, 533, 611
5747:
5748: \reference{rosa02}
5749: Rosa-Gonz{\'a}lez, D., Terlevich, E., \& Terlevich, R.\ 2002,
5750: \mnras, 332, 283
5751:
5752: \reference{rudnick03}
5753: Rudnick, G., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 847
5754:
5755: \reference{rudnick06}
5756: Rudnick, G., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 650, 624
5757:
5758: \reference{sal55}
5759: Salpeter, E.,\ 1955, \apj, 121, 161
5760:
5761: \reference{sav05}
5762: Savaglio, S., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 635, 260
5763:
5764: \reference{sty79}
5765: Sandage, A., Tammann, G. A., \& Yahil, A.\ 1979, \apj, 172, 253 (STY)
5766:
5767: \reference{schechter76}
5768: Schechter, P.\ 1976, \apj, 203, 297
5769:
5770: \reference{sch05}
5771: Schiminovich, D., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 619, L47
5772:
5773: \reference{shap04}
5774: Shapley, A. E, Erb, D. K., Pettini, M., Steidel, C. C., \&
5775: Adelberger, K.L.\ 2004, \apj, 612, 108
5776:
5777: \reference{silva98}
5778: Silva, L., Granato, G. L., Bressan, A., \& Danese, L.\ 1998,
5779: \apj, 509, 103
5780:
5781: \reference{som04}
5782: Somerville, R. S., Lee, K., Ferguson, H. C., Gardner, J. P., Moustakas, L. A.,
5783: \& Giavalisco, M.\ 2004, \apj, 600, 171
5784:
5785: \reference{steidel99}
5786: Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Giavalisco, M., Dickinson, M.,
5787: \& Pettini, M.\ 1999, \apj, 519, 1
5788:
5789: \reference{strateva01}
5790: Strateva, I., et al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 1861
5791:
5792: \reference{swin04}
5793: Swinbank, A. M., Smail, I., Chapman, S. C., Blain, A. W.,
5794: Ivison, R. J., \& Keel, W. C.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 64
5795:
5796: \reference{trem04}
5797: Tremonti, C. A, et al.\ 2004, \apj, 613, 898 (Tremonti04)
5798:
5799: \reference{treu05}
5800: Treu, T., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 174 (Treu05)
5801:
5802: \reference{vdW07}
5803: van der Wel, A., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 670, 206
5804:
5805: \reference{vd00}
5806: van Dokkum, P. G., Franx, M., Fabricant, D., Illingworth, G. D.,
5807: \& Kelson, D. D.\ 2000, \apj, 541, 95
5808:
5809: \reference{wang06}
5810: Wang, W.-H., Cowie, L. L., \& Barger, A. J.\ 2006, \apj, 647, 74
5811:
5812: \reference{weiner05}
5813: Weiner, B. J., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 620, 595
5814:
5815: \reference{willmer06}
5816: Willmer, C. N. A., et al.\ (2006), \apj, 647, 853
5817:
5818: \reference{wilson02}
5819: Wilson, G., Cowie, L. L., Barger, A. J., \& Burke, D. J.\
5820: 2002, \aj, 124, 1258
5821:
5822: \reference{wirth04}
5823: Wirth, G. D., et al.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 3121
5824:
5825: \reference{wyder05}
5826: Wyder, T. K., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 619, L15
5827:
5828: \end{references}
5829:
5830: \clearpage
5831:
5832: %
5833: % TABLE 1
5834: %
5835: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
5836: \tablewidth{480pt}
5837: \tablenum{1}
5838: \tablecaption{Schechter Function Fits}
5839: \tablehead{
5840: Redshift Interval & $\alpha(z)$ & Log $M_\star(z)$ & Log $\phi_\star(z)$ & Log $M_\star(z)$ ($\alpha=-1.18$)\cr
5841: & & (M$_\odot$) & (Mpc$^{-3}$) & (M$_\odot$)
5842: }
5843: \startdata
5844: Local\tablenotemark{a} & $-1.18\pm0.03$ & $11.16\pm0.01$ & $-2.51\pm0.06$ & $11.16\pm0.1$ \nl
5845: $0.05-0.475$ & $-1.10 (-0.88,-1.30)$ & $10.93 (10.71,11.25)$ & $-2.63\pm0.08$ & $11.02 (10.85,11.21)$\nl
5846: $0.475-0.9 $ & $-0.94 (-0.70,-1.16)$ & $11.08 (10.93,11.26)$ & $-2.60\pm0.10$ & $11.24 (11.14,11.35)$\nl
5847: $0.9-1.5 $ & $-0.56 (-0.08,-0.98)$ & $11.02 (10.87,11.20)$ & $-2.63\pm0.04$ & $11.28 (11.19,11.38)$\nl
5848: \enddata
5849: \tablenotetext{a}{Cole et al.\ (2001)}
5850: \label{sty_fits}
5851: \end{deluxetable}
5852:
5853:
5854: %
5855: % TABLE 2
5856: %
5857: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
5858: \tablewidth{360pt}
5859: \tablenum{2}
5860: \tablecaption{Percentages of Strong Star Formers}
5861: \tablehead{Logarithmic & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Per Redshift Interval (\%)} \cr
5862: Mass Interval (M$_\odot$) & $z=0.9-1.5$ & $z=0.475-0.9$ & $z=0.05-0.475$
5863: }
5864: \startdata
5865: $ 10-10.5$ & \nodata & $55\pm5$ & $67\pm11$ \nl
5866: $10.5-11$ & $41\pm 4$ & $29\pm4$ & $32\pm12$ \nl
5867: $11-11.5$ & $15\pm 4$ & $8 (4-12)$\tablenotemark{a} & $10 (0-33)$\tablenotemark{a} \nl
5868: \enddata
5869: \label{tabsf}
5870: \tablenotetext{a}{Parentheses show the 68\% confidence limits.}
5871: \end{deluxetable}
5872:
5873:
5874: %
5875: % TABLE 3
5876: %
5877: \begin{deluxetable}{ccll}
5878: \tablewidth{360pt}
5879: \tablenum{3}
5880: \tablecaption{R23 Metallicity Evolution\label{metal_drop}}
5881: \tablehead{
5882: Logarithmic & & & \cr
5883: Mass Interval & Tremonti04 & $z=0.05-0.475$ & $z=0.475-0.9$
5884: }
5885: \startdata
5886: $ 9.30-9.75 $ & $8.77$ & $-0.10 \pm 0.08$ & \nodata \nl
5887: $ 9.75-10.25$ & $8.91$ & $-0.10 \pm 0.07$ & $-0.21 \pm 0.04$ \nl
5888: $10.25-10.75$ & $9.02$ & $-0.07 \pm 0.10$ & $-0.20 \pm 0.04$ \nl
5889: $10.75-11.25$ & $9.10$ & \nodata & $-0.12 \pm 0.05$ \nl
5890: \enddata
5891: \end{deluxetable}
5892:
5893: \end{document}
5894: