1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2004 January 9
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
19:
20: %
21: % apj emulation
22: %
23: %\documentclass{article}
24: %\usepackage{emulateapj}
25: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
26:
27: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
28:
29: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
30:
31: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
32:
33: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
34: \documentclass[twocolumn]{emulateapj}
35:
36: \usepackage{natbib}
37: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
38: \usepackage{epsf}
39: %\usepackage{mathptmx}
40:
41: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
42: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
43: %% use the longabstract style option.
44:
45: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
46:
47: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
48: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
49: %% the \begin{document} command.
50: %%
51: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
52: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
53: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
54: %% for information.
55:
56: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
57: \newcommand{\myemail}{gabasch@mpe.mpg.de}
58:
59: \def\lsim{\mathrel{\rlap{\lower4pt\hbox{\hskip1pt$\sim$}}
60: \raise1pt\hbox{$<$}}} % less than or approx. symbol
61:
62: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
63:
64: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
65:
66: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
67: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
68: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
69: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
70: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
71: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
72:
73: \shorttitle{The SFR history in the FDF and GOODS-South fields}
74: \shortauthors{Gabasch et al.}
75:
76: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
77: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
78:
79: %\received{2004 June 8}
80: \begin{document}
81:
82: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
83: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
84: %% you desire.
85:
86: \title{The star formation rate history in the FORS Deep and GOODS
87: South Fields
88: \altaffilmark{1}}
89: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations collected at the European Southern
90: Observatory, Chile (ESO programmes
91: 63.O-0005, 64.O-0149, 64.O-0158, 64.O-0229, 64.P-0150, 65.O-0048,
92: 65.O-0049, 66.A-0547, 68.A-0013, and 69.A-0014)}
93: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
94: %% author and affiliation information.
95: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
96: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
97: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
98: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
99:
100: \author{A. Gabasch, M. Salvato, R.P. Saglia, R. Bender, U. Hopp, S. Seitz, G. Feulner, M. Pannella}
101: \affil{Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstr., Postfach 1312, D-85741 Garching, Germany}
102: \affil{Universit\"atssternwarte M\"unchen, Scheinerstr. 1, D-81673 M\"unchen, Germany}
103: \and
104: \author{N. Drory}
105: \affil{University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712}
106: \and
107: \author{M. Schirmer, T. Erben}
108: \affil{Institut f\"ur Astrophysik und extraterrestrische Forschung, Universit\"at Bonn, Auf dem H\"ugel 171, D-52121 Bonn, Germany}
109:
110:
111:
112:
113: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
114: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
115: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
116: %% affiliation.
117:
118: %\altaffiltext{1}{Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory.
119: %CTIO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science
120: %Foundation.}
121: %\altaffiltext{2}{Society of Fellows, Harvard University.}
122: %\altaffiltext{3}{present address: Center for Astrophysics,
123: % 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138}
124: %\altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Programmer, Space Telescope Science Institute}
125: %\altaffiltext{5}{Patron, Alonso's Bar and Grill}
126:
127: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
128: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
129: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
130: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
131: %% editorial office after submission.
132:
133: \begin{abstract}
134: We measure the star formation rate (SFR) as a function of redshift
135: $z$ up to $z\approx 4.5$, based on B, I and (I+B) selected galaxy
136: catalogues from the FORS Deep Field (FDF) and the K-selected
137: catalogue from the GOODS-South field. Distances are computed from
138: spectroscopically calibrated photometric redshifts accurate to
139: $\Delta z / (z_{spec}+1) \le 0.03$ for the FDF and $\le 0.056$ for
140: the GOODS-South field. The SFRs are derived from the luminosities at
141: 1500~\AA. We find that the total SFR estimates derived from B, I and
142: I+B catalogues agree very well ($\lsim 0.1$ dex) while the SFR from
143: the K catalogue is lower by $\approx 0.2$ dex. We show that the
144: latter is solely due to the lower star-forming activity of
145: K-selected intermediate and low luminosity ($L<L_\ast$) galaxies.
146: The SFR of bright ($L>L_\ast$) galaxies is independent of the
147: selection band, {\it i.e.} the same for B, I, (I+B), and K-selected
148: galaxy samples. At all redshifts, luminous galaxies ($L>L_\ast$)
149: contribute only $\sim \frac{1}{3}$ to the total SFR. There is no
150: evidence for significant cosmic variance between the SFRs in the FDF
151: and GOODs-South field, $\lsim 0.1$ dex, consistent with theoretical
152: expectations. The SFRs derived here are in excellent agreement with
153: previous measurements provided we assume the same faint-end slope of
154: the luminosity function as previous works ($\alpha\sim -1.6$).
155: However, our deep FDF data indicate a shallower slope of
156: $\alpha=-1.07$, implying a SFR lower by $\approx 0.3$ dex. We find
157: the SFR to be roughly constant up to $z\approx 4$ and then to
158: decline slowly beyond, if dust extinctions are assumed to be
159: constant with redshift.
160: \end{abstract}
161:
162: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
163: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
164: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
165: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
166:
167: %% Authors who wish to have the most important objects in their paper
168: %% linked in the electronic edition to a data center may do so in the
169: %% subject header. Objects should be in the appropriate "individual"
170: %% headers (e.g. quasars: individual, stars: individual, etc.) with the
171: %% additional provision that the total number of headers, including each
172: %% individual object, not exceed six. The \objectname{} macro, and its
173: %% alias \object{}, is used to mark each object. The macro takes the object
174: %% name as its primary argument. This name will appear in the paper
175: %% and serve as the link's anchor in the electronic edition if the name
176: %% is recognized by the data centers. The macro also takes an optional
177: %% argument in parentheses in cases where the data center identification
178: %% differs from what is to be printed in the paper.
179:
180: \keywords{galaxies: high-redshift --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: evolution}
181:
182: %% From the front matter, we move on to the body of the paper.
183: %% In the first two sections, notice the use of the natbib \citep
184: %% and \citet commands to identify citations. The citations are
185: %% tied to the reference list via symbolic KEYs. The KEY corresponds
186: %% to the KEY in the \bibitem in the reference list below. We have
187: %% chosen the first three characters of the first author's name plus
188: %% the last two numeral of the year of publication as our KEY for
189: %% each reference.
190:
191: \section{Introduction}
192: \label{sec:sfr:introduction}
193:
194: The determination of the star formation rate (SFR) history of the
195: universe is one of the most interesting results extracted from the
196: deep photometric and spectroscopic surveys of the last decade. A large
197: number of measurements have been collected, at low \citep[the
198: Canada-France redshift survey at $z<1$,][]{lilly:1}, and high redshift
199: from the Hubble Deep Field North \citep{madau:96}, the large samples
200: of U and B drop-out galaxies \citep{steidel:1}, up to the most recent
201: determinations based on I-dropouts at redshift $\approx 6$ from the
202: GOODS, UDF and UDF-Parallel ACS fields \citep{giavalisco:2,bunker:1,
203: bouwens:2004}. These studies show that the SFR (uncorrected for
204: dust) increases from $z=0$ to $z=1$, stays approximately constant in
205: the redshift range $1-4$, and starts to decline at larger redshifts.
206: In all the cases quoted above the determination is based on the
207: estimate of the total UV galaxy luminosity density, that for a given
208: IMF is proportional to the instantaneous SFR
209: \citep{madau:96,mad_poz_dick1}. As discussed by many authors (e.g.
210: \citealt{hopkins:1}) this approach is affected by the uncertainties of
211: dust correction, but roughly agrees with other estimators at low to
212: intermediate redshifts ($z\le1$). Theoretical models of galaxy
213: formation and evolution can be tested against the measured SFR history
214: \citep{somerville,hernquist:1}.
215:
216: So far, all determinations of the SFR history have suffered from some
217: major limitations. High redshift samples have been small in number due
218: to the limited field of view of deep pencil-beam surveys, resulting in
219: large Poissonian fluctuations and large field-to-field variations
220: (cosmic variance). The faint-end of the luminosity function (LF)
221: is thusfar only poorly constrained at high redshifts, implying large
222: completeness correction factors. Finally, the technique used to
223: generate the high-redshift galaxy catalogues (drop-out selection,
224: optical magnitude limited survey) might have introduced biases by
225: selecting only specific types of galaxies and possibly missing
226: relevant fractions of UV light \citep{ilbert:1}.
227:
228: Here we try to minimize these uncertainties and determine the SFR
229: history of the universe with improved accuracy up to $z\approx 4.5$.
230: Our sample of high redshift galaxies is based on two deep fields, the
231: (I and B selected) FORS Deep Field \citep[FDF, ][]{fdf_data}, and the
232: (K-selected) GOODS-South field \citep{giavalisco:1}. Both cover a
233: relatively large sky area, reducing the problem of cosmic variance.
234: Both are deep enough to allow the detection of several \mbox{$\times$
235: $10^3$} galaxies, thus minimizing the effect of shot noise.
236: %influence of Poisson noise.
237:
238:
239: Accurate photometric redshifts ($\Delta z / (z_{spec}+1) \le 0.03$ for
240: the FDF and $\le 0.056$ for the GOODS-South field) with only $\approx
241: 1$ \% catastrophic failures allow us to measure the UV
242: luminosity function down to fainter limits than spectroscopic
243: samples. A detailed comparison of the UV luminosity
244: functions of the FDF with the LF derived in large surveys was
245: presented in \citet{gabasch:1} and shows good agreement in the
246: overlapping magnitude range at all redshifts. Finally and
247: most importantly, the two fields provide us with B-band, I-band and
248: K-band selected catalogues, making it possible to assess the
249: dependence of the SFR on the detection band and galaxy colors and the
250: associated selection biases.
251:
252: The Letter is organized as follows. In \S \ref{sec_photometry} we
253: discuss the photometry and the photometric redshifts of the two
254: fields, in \S \ref{sec_sfr} we present our results on the SFR history,
255: and in \S \ref{sec_conclusions} we draw our conclusions. Throughout
256: the paper we use AB magnitudes and adopt a concordance cosmology with
257: \mbox{$\Omega_M=0.3$}, \mbox{$\Omega_\Lambda=0.7$}, and \mbox{$H_0=70
258: \, \mathrm{km} \, \mathrm{s}^{-1} \, \mathrm{Mpc}^{-1}$}.
259:
260: \section{Data sets}
261: \label{sec_photometry}
262:
263: The present results are based on photometric catalogues derived for
264: the FDF \citep[][ UBgRI,\mbox{834~nm},zJKs bands]{fdf_data,gabasch:1} and the
265: GOODS-South fields \citep[][ UBVRIJHKs bands]{salvato:1}.
266: The two
267: fields cover approximately the same area (39.81 arcmin$^2$ for FDF and
268: 50 arcmin$^2$ for GOODS); the FDF reaches effective absolute magnitude
269: limits $\approx 1$ mag deeper than GOODS-South (see below). We use
270: the I-band and B-band selected FDF catalogues as derived in
271: \citet{fdf_data} and \citet{gabasch:1}. The B and I selected
272: catalogues list 5488 and 5557 bona-fide galaxies (having excluded the
273: one known bright quasar in the field) down to $B_{lim}=27.6$ and
274: $I_{lim}=26.8$, respectively. The I+B catalogue obtained by merging
275: these two contains 6756 entries.
276: Photometric redshifts for the FDF galaxies have an accuracy of
277: \mbox{$\Delta z / (z_{spec}+1) \le 0.03$} with only $\sim 1$\% catastrophic
278: outliers \citep{gabasch:1}.
279:
280: Our K-band selected catalogue for the GOODS-South field is based on
281: the 8 $2.5\times2.5$ arcmin$^2$ J, H, Ks VLT-ISAAC images publically
282: available, taken with seeing in the range $0.4''-0.5''$. The U and I
283: images are from GOODS/EIS public survey, while B V R are taken from
284: the Garching-Bonn Deep Survey. Data reduction is described in
285: \citet{arnouts:1} and \citet{schirmer:1}, respectively.
286: The data for the GOODS field were analyzed in a very similar way to
287: the data of the FDF. The objects were detected in the K-band images
288: closely following the procedure used for the FDF I and B band
289: detection \citep{fdf_data}, using both SExtractor \citep{bertin} and
290: the YODA package \citep{drory:3}. A detailed description of the
291: procedure can be found in \citet[][]{salvato:1}. We detected 3367
292: objects in K-band for which we derived magnitudes (fixed aperture
293: and total) in all bands. Number counts match the literature values
294: down to $K\approx 25.4$, which is the completeness limit of the
295: catalogue, in agreement with the number obtained following
296: \citet{snigula:1}. Note that much deeper ACS based catalogues are
297: available \citep{giavalisco:1}, but as we are focusing on
298: the K-selection they are not relevant in this context. We computed
299: photometric redshifts following \citet[ 2004, in
300: preparation]{bender:1} and using the same SED template spectra as
301: for the FDF. The comparison with the spectroscopic redshifts of the
302: VIMOS team \citep{lefevre:1} and the FORS2 spectra released at
303: http://www.eso.org/science/goods/, shows that the photometric
304: redshifts have an accuracy $\Delta z /(z_{spec}+1) \le 0.056$.
305: Similar results are obtained when comparing to the COMBO-17
306: \citep{wolf:1} data.
307: %
308: This is nearly a factor of 2 better than \citet{mobasher:1} obtained
309: using ground-based plus HST/ACS data. Stars are identified and
310: excluded as in \citet{gabasch:1}, as well as known AGN
311: \citep{szokoly:1}, leaving 3297 bona-fide galaxies used in the
312: further analysis.
313:
314:
315: Fig. \ref{fig:sfr:cont_absmag_fdf_goods} shows the distribution of
316: galaxies (slightly smoothed with a Gaussian kernel) in the rest
317: frame $1500 $\AA\ absolute magnitude $M_{1500}$ vs. redshift
318: plane, computed by integrating the best fitting SED over the band
319: definition ($1500\pm 100 $\AA). The contours agree remarkably well
320: at the bright-end showing that the number density of bright galaxies
321: does not significantly depend on the wavelength at which they were
322: selected (for the B-band, this is of course only true up to
323: $z\approx 3$). For better comparability of the FDF and GOODS-South
324: samples at the faint-end, we chose a consistent magnitude cut-off
325: for all samples in Fig. \ref{fig:sfr:cont_absmag_fdf_goods}. This
326: magnitude cut-off corresponds to the completeness limit of the
327: GOODS-South sample and is about one magnitude brighter than the
328: completeness limits of the FDF B and I samples. For the redshift
329: bins defined by the limits 0.45, 0.81, 1.21, 1.61, 2.43, 3.01, 4.01,
330: 5.01, the cut-offs in $M_{1500}$ are at -15, -16, -17, -18, -19,
331: -20, -20.
332:
333: The $M_{1500}$ LFs and the related parameters $M_\ast$, $\Phi_\ast$
334: and $\alpha$ of the B, I, and (I+B) selected FDF samples are almost
335: identical. We derived consistent values for $\alpha$
336: (\mbox{$-1.07\pm 0.04$}) for all three samples considered here,
337: similar to that described in \citet{gabasch:1}.
338: Consistent faint-end slopes ($\alpha = -1.01 \pm 0.08$) were
339: obtained using a brighter subset of the data set (i.e. 1 mag
340: brighter than the 50\% completeness limit). Objects that were
341: detected in only one band and not in both are all faint and do not
342: contribute significantly to SFR determined from the integral over
343: the LF. \citet{gabasch:1} show that the steeper slope of other
344: surveys is largely due to shallower limiting magnitudes. This is
345: supported by an analysis of \mbox{$z \sim 6$} dropouts from GOODS
346: and the Hubble Ultra Deep Parallel Fields \citep{bouwens:2004} where
347: an $\alpha$ of -1.15 was derived. Compared to LF parameters of the
348: optically selected samples, the $M_{1500}$ LF of the K-selected
349: sample has slightly brighter values of $M_\ast$, significantly lower
350: values in $\Phi_\ast$ and, within the large errors, a similar
351: faint-end slope $\alpha$. Since the slightly shallower K-selected
352: sample does not allow us to constrain the faint-end slope to the
353: same level as our FDF sample (but is consistent with the faint end
354: slope $\alpha=-1.07$ determined for that field), we adopt this value
355: for our K-selected sample.
356:
357: \noindent
358: We examine the consequences of these findings for the SFR in the next
359: section.
360:
361:
362:
363: \section{The Star Formation Rate}
364: \label{sec_sfr}
365:
366: We compute the SFR for all 4 catalogues from the total luminosity
367: densities $l_{1500}$ in the 1500 \AA\ band. First, we derive
368: $l_{1500}$ at a given redshift by summing the completeness corrected
369: \citep[using a $V/V_{max}$ correction, see][]{gabasch:1} LFs up to the
370: \mbox{1500 \AA\ } absolute magnitude limits. Second, we apply a
371: further correction (to zero galaxy luminosity) ZGL, to take into
372: account the missing contribution to the luminosity density of the
373: fainter galaxies. To this end we use the best-fitting Schechter
374: function. For the FDF catalogues the ZGL corrections are only 2-20\%
375: in size. The small ZGL correction employed here owes itself to the
376: faint magnitude limits probed by our deep FDF data set and the
377: relatively flat slopes ($\alpha\approx -1.07$) of the Schechter
378: function. Due to the brighter magnitude limit, the ZGL corrections
379: for the GOODS catalogue can be as high as 50\%. Note that if we
380: follow i.e. \citet{steidel:1} who find $\alpha=-1.6$ \citep[excluded
381: at 2$\sigma$ with our fits, see ][]{gabasch:1}, we would get much
382: larger ZGL corrections for the same $M_\ast$, $\Phi_\ast$ (see the
383: dotted line in Fig.~\ref{fig:sfr:sfr_fdf_goods} and the discussion
384: below).
385:
386:
387:
388: Finally, following \citet{mad_poz_dick1} we derive the SFR by scaling
389: the UV luminosity densities: ${\rm
390: SFR}_{1500}=1.25\times10^{-28}\times l_{1500}$ in units of $M_\odot
391: yr^{-1}Mpc^{-3}$, where the constant is computed for a Salpeter IMF.
392: The resulting values of ${\rm SFR}_{1500}$
393: %as a function of redshift
394: are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:sfr:sfr_fdf_goods} as a function of
395: redshift. Errors are computed from Monte Carlo simulations that take
396: into account the probability distributions of photometric redshifts
397: and the Poissonian error \citep{gabasch:1}. Following
398: \citet{adelberger:1}, we assume that dust extinction does not evolve
399: with redshift and is about a factor of $\sim 5-9$ in the rest-frame
400: UV. A more detailed discussion of the role of dust will be given in a
401: future paper, like an analysis based on the SFR derived at 2800 \AA.
402: Thanks to the large area covered and the faint limiting magnitudes
403: probed, our determination of the SFR is the most precise to date, with
404: statistical errors less than 0.1 dex for the single redshift bins
405: spanning the range $0.5< z<5$.
406:
407: The considerations of \S\ref{sec_photometry} translate in the
408: following conclusions about the SFR. Out to redshift $z\approx 3$ the
409: SFRs derived from the I and B selected FDF, or the merged I+B
410: catalogue, are identical within the errors ($\lsim 0.1$ dex; see plot
411: at the bottom left of Fig. \ref{fig:sfr:sfr_fdf_goods}). At larger
412: redshifts the B-selected SFRs underestimate the true values, since B
413: drop-outs are not taken into account. The strong evolution in both the
414: $M_\ast$ and $\phi_\ast$ parameters of the Schechter LF measured as a
415: function of redshift by \citet{gabasch:1} results in a nearly constant
416: SFR, because the strong brightening of $M_\ast$ is compensated by the
417: dramatic decrease of $\phi_\ast$ with $z$.
418: Comparing the two lower panels of \mbox{Fig.
419: \ref{fig:sfr:sfr_fdf_goods}} shows that luminous galaxies
420: ($L>L_\ast$) contribute only a third of the total SFR at all observed
421: $z$, independent of the selection band.
422:
423:
424: The K-selected SFRs are similar in shape, but systematically lower by
425: $\approx 0.2$ dex at $z>1$. This result holds independently of our
426: completeness correction. If we consider only the contributions to the
427: SFR down to the limiting magnitude set by the K-band, we find the same
428: 0.2 dex difference for $1<z\le 3$, and 0.15 dex at $z> 3$. Fig.
429: \ref{fig:sfr:cont_absmag_fdf_goods} shows that this result originates
430: from the lower density of $M_{1500}>-19$ galaxies in the K-selected
431: catalogue, as intermediate and low luminosity blue galaxies
432: contributing to the SFR budget are more easily detected in the bluer
433: bands than in K. In fact, the contributions to the SFR coming from the
434: galaxies brighter than $L_\ast^I$ are identical within the errors for
435: the I and K selected catalogues (see Fig.
436: \ref{fig:sfr:sfr_fdf_goods}, bottom-right panel). Therefore, cosmic
437: variance does not play a role, as we also verified by comparing the
438: B-band number counts in the 2 fields. They agree within 0.1 dex, which
439: is the expected variation derived by \citet{somerville:2} scaled to
440: the area of the GOODS-South field.
441: On the other hand, \citet{gabasch:1} show that the I-band FDF
442: catalogue might be missing only about 10~\% of the galaxies that would
443: be detected in a deep K-band selected survey with magnitude limit
444: $K_{AB}\approx 26$ \citep[like in][]{labbe:1}. The missing galaxies
445: would be faint and likely not contributing significantly to the SFR
446: provided their dust extinction is not exceedingly large. Independent
447: of the selection band the SFR declines beyond $z \sim 4.5$. Our
448: results confirm the conjecture of \citet{kashikawa:1} that the
449: K-selected UV LFs match the optically selected LFs at high
450: luminosities.
451:
452: The comparison with the literature shows that our results are
453: \mbox{$\sim 0.3$} dex lower, independent of the selection band.
454: This difference stems from the large completeness
455: corrections applied by, e.g., \citet{steidel:1}, derived from the
456: steep slopes fitted to the LF (see \S\ref{sec_photometry}). Our
457: results scale to the literature values if similar slopes
458: are used for the same $M_\ast$ and $\phi_\ast$. This is
459: shown by the dotted lines of Fig. \ref{fig:sfr:sfr_fdf_goods}, where
460: we have assumed a slope of $-1.6$ for our data set while keeping
461: $M_\ast$ and $\phi_\ast$ the same as in our fit.
462:
463:
464: The overall agreement between the SFRs derived over a wide wavelength
465: range (within 0.2 dex),
466: from the optical B and I to the NIR K, sampling at $z\approx 4$ the
467: rest-frame UV and B, shows that we are approaching (in the optical)
468: the complete census of the galaxies contributing to the stellar
469: production of the universe up to this redshift. Therefore, we can
470: expect possible biases induced by missing stellar energy distributions
471: with redshift \citep{ilbert:1} to be small, when deep enough optical
472: or NIR catalogues are available. However, we might still not take
473: into account the possible contribution to the SFR coming from faint,
474: highly dust-absorbed red star-forming galaxies
475: \citep{hughes:98,genzel:1} which are likely missing from optically or
476: near-infrared selected samples.
477: Nevertheless, it is encouraging to find that recent Spitzer results
478: (e.g. \citealt{egami:1}) indicate that the majority of the star
479: formation has already been accounted for using the dust-corrected SFR
480: derived from optical studies.
481:
482: \section{Conclusions}
483: \label{sec_conclusions}
484:
485: We have measured the SFR of the universe out to $z\approx 4.5$ with
486: unprecedented accuracy from the FORS Deep Field and the GOODS-South
487: Field ($90$ arcmin$^2$ in total). Our main conclusions are:\\
488: $\bullet$ The cosmic variance in the SFR history between the FDF and
489: GOODS-South field is negligibly small. The difference between these
490: fields is $\lsim 0.1$ dex,
491: consistent with theoretical expectations.\\
492: $\bullet$ The SFR of galaxies brighter than $L_\ast^I$ is the same
493: ($\lsim 0.1$ dex) in B, I, (I+B) and K selected catalogues. This
494: indicates that present optical and NIR surveys are unlikely to have
495: missed a substantial fraction population of massive star forming
496: objects (with the possible exception of heavily dust-enshrouded
497: starbursts).\\
498: $\bullet$ The total SFR integrated over all galaxy luminosities is the
499: same in the B, I, and (I+B) selected catalogues and is lower in the
500: K-selected catalogue by 0.2 dex. This difference originates at
501: luminosities lower than $L_\ast$ which implies that K-selected surveys
502: miss a significant fraction of star-forming lower-luminosity galaxies.\\
503: $\bullet$ At all redshifts, luminous galaxies ($L>L_\ast$) contribute
504: only $\sim \frac{1}{3}$ to the total SFR, i.e. the integrated SFR of
505: $L<L_\ast$ galaxies is a factor of $\sim 2$
506: higher than the one of $L>L_\ast$ galaxies.\\
507: $\bullet$ Our fits to the FDF luminosity functions suggest a flat
508: faint-end slope of $\alpha=-1.07 \pm 0.04$ in contrast to the assumed
509: slope of $\alpha \sim -1.6$ in the literature. This implies that past
510: determinations have overestimated the SFR by a factor 2.\\
511: $\bullet$ The SFR is approximately constant over the redshift range
512: $1\le z\le4$ and drops by about 50\% around $z=4.5$, if dust
513: corrections constant with redshift are assumed.
514: %% The displaymath environment will produce the same sort of equation as
515: %% the equation environment, except that the equation will not be numbered
516: %% by LaTeX.
517:
518:
519: %% If you wish to include an acknowledgments section in your paper,
520: %% separate it off from the body of the text using the \acknowledgments
521: %% command.
522:
523: %% Included in this acknowledgments section are examples of the
524: %% AASTeX hypertext markup commands. Use \url without the optional [HREF]
525: %% argument when you want to print the url directly in the text. Otherwise,
526: %% use either \url or \anchor, with the HREF as the first argument and the
527: %% text to be printed in the second.
528:
529: \acknowledgments
530: We thank the anonymous referee for his helpful comments which
531: improved the presentation of the paper considerably.
532: This work was supported by SFB 375 of the DFG, by the German Ministry
533: for Science and Education (BMBF) through DESY under the project
534: 05AE2PDA/8, and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under the
535: project SCHN 342/3--1 M. Schirmer und T. Erben thank C. Wolf for
536: providing some of the optical images used here. Observations have
537: been carried out using the Very Large Telescope at the ESO Paranal
538: Observatory under Program ID(s): LP168.A-0485
539:
540: %% To help institutions obtain information on the effectiveness of their
541: %% telescopes, the AAS Journals has created a group of keywords for telescope
542: %% facilities. A common set of keywords will make these types of searches
543: %% significantly easier and more accurate. In addition, they will also be
544: %% useful in linking papers together which utilize the same telescopes
545: %% within the framework of the National Virtual Observatory.
546: %% See the AASTeX Web site at http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AAS/AASTeX
547: %% for information on obtaining the facility keywords.
548:
549: %% After the acknowledgments section, use the following syntax and the
550: %% \facility{} macro to list the keywords of facilities used in the research
551: %% for the paper. Each keyword will be checked against the master list during
552: %% copy editing. Individual instruments can be provided in parentheses,
553: %% after the keyword, but they will not be verified.
554:
555: %Facilities: \facility{ESO}.
556:
557: %% Appendix material should be preceded with a single \appendix command.
558: %% There should be a \section command for each appendix. Mark appendix
559: %% subsections with the same markup you use in the main body of the paper.
560:
561: %% Each Appendix (indicated with \section) will be lettered A, B, C, etc.
562: %% The equation counter will reset when it encounters the \appendix
563: %% command and will number appendix equations (A1), (A2), etc.
564:
565:
566: %% The reference list follows the main body and any appendices.
567: %% Use LaTeX's thebibliography environment to mark up your reference list.
568: %% Note \begin{thebibliography} is followed by an empty set of
569: %% curly braces. If you forget this, LaTeX will generate the error
570: %% "Perhaps a missing \item?".
571: %%
572: %% thebibliography produces citations in the text using \bibitem-\cite
573: %% cross-referencing. Each reference is preceded by a
574: %% \bibitem command that defines in curly braces the KEY that corresponds
575: %% to the KEY in the \cite commands (see the first section above).
576: %% Make sure that you provide a unique KEY for every \bibitem or else the
577: %% paper will not LaTeX. The square brackets should contain
578: %% the citation text that LaTeX will insert in
579: %% place of the \cite commands.
580:
581: %% We have used macros to produce journal name abbreviations.
582: %% AASTeX provides a number of these for the more frequently-cited journals.
583: %% See the Author Guide for a list of them.
584:
585: %% Note that the style of the \bibitem labels (in []) is slightly
586: %% different from previous examples. The natbib system solves a host
587: %% of citation expression problems, but it is necessary to clearly
588: %% delimit the year from the author name used in the citation.
589: %% See the natbib documentation for more details and options.
590:
591:
592: \begin{thebibliography}{}
593:
594: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Adelberger} \& {Steidel}}{{Adelberger} \&
595: {Steidel}}{2000}]{adelberger:1}
596: {Adelberger}, K.~L., \& {Steidel}, C.~C. 2000, ApJ, 544, 218
597:
598: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Arnouts} et~al.}{{Arnouts}
599: et~al.}{2001}]{arnouts:1}
600: {Arnouts}, S., et~al. 2001, A\&A, 379, 740
601:
602: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bender} et~al.}{{Bender}
603: et~al.}{2001}]{bender:1}
604: {Bender}, R., et~al. 2001, in ESO/ECF/STScI Workshop on Deep Fields, ed.
605: S.~Christiani (Berlin: Springer), 327
606:
607: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bertin} \& {Arnouts}}{{Bertin} \&
608: {Arnouts}}{1996}]{bertin}
609: {Bertin}, E., \& {Arnouts}, S. 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
610:
611: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bouwens} et~al.}{{Bouwens}
612: et~al.}{2003a}]{bbi:1}
613: {Bouwens}, R.~J., et~al. 2003a, ApJ, 593, 640
614:
615: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bouwens} et~al.}{{Bouwens}
616: et~al.}{2003b}]{bouwens:2003}
617: {Bouwens}, R.~J., et~al. 2003b, ApJ, 595, 589
618:
619: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bouwens} et~al.}{{Bouwens}
620: et~al.}{2004}]{bouwens:2004}
621: {Bouwens}, R.~J., et~al. 2004, ApJ, 606, L25
622:
623: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Bunker} et~al.}{{Bunker}
624: et~al.}{2004}]{bunker:1}
625: {Bunker}, A., et~al. 2004, astro-ph/0403223
626:
627: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Drory}}{{Drory}}{2003}]{drory:3}
628: {Drory}, N. 2003, A\&A, 397, 371
629:
630: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Egami} et~al.}{{Egami}
631: et~al.}{2004}]{egami:1}
632: {Egami}, E., et~al. 2004, astro-ph/0406359
633:
634: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Fontana} et~al.}{{Fontana}
635: et~al.}{2003}]{fontana:1}
636: {Fontana}, A., et~al. 2003, ApJ, 587, 544
637:
638: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Gabasch} et~al.}{{Gabasch}
639: et~al.}{2004}]{gabasch:1}
640: {Gabasch}, A., et~al. 2004, A\&A, 421, 41
641:
642: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Genzel} et~al.}{{Genzel}
643: et~al.}{2001}]{genzel:1}
644: {Genzel}, R., et~al. 2001, ApJ, 563, 527
645:
646: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Giavalisco} et~al.}{{Giavalisco}
647: et~al.}{2004a}]{giavalisco:2}
648: {Giavalisco}, M., et~al. 2004a, ApJ, 600, L103
649:
650: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Giavalisco} et~al.}{{Giavalisco}
651: et~al.}{2004b}]{giavalisco:1}
652: {Giavalisco}, M., et~al. 2004b, ApJ, 600, L93
653:
654: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Heidt} et~al.}{{Heidt}
655: et~al.}{2003}]{fdf_data}
656: {Heidt}, J., et~al. 2003, A\&A, 398, 49
657:
658: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hernquist} \& {Springel}}{{Hernquist} \&
659: {Springel}}{2003}]{hernquist:1}
660: {Hernquist}, L., \& {Springel}, V. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 1253
661:
662: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hopkins} et~al.}{{Hopkins}
663: et~al.}{2001}]{hopkins:1}
664: {Hopkins}, A.~M., et~al. 2001, AJ, 122, 288
665:
666: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Hughes} et~al.}{{Hughes}
667: et~al.}{1998}]{hughes:98}
668: {Hughes}, D.~H., et~al. 1998, Nat, 394, 241
669:
670: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Ilbert} et~al.}{{Ilbert}
671: et~al.}{2004}]{ilbert:1}
672: {Ilbert}, O., et~al. 2004, \mnras, 351, 541
673:
674: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Iwata} et~al.}{{Iwata}
675: et~al.}{2003}]{iwata:1}
676: {Iwata}, I., et~al. 2003, PASJ, 55, 415
677:
678: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Kashikawa} et~al.}{{Kashikawa}
679: et~al.}{2003}]{kashikawa:1}
680: {Kashikawa}, N., et~al. 2003, AJ, 125, 53
681:
682: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Labb{\' e}} et~al.}{{Labb{\' e}}
683: et~al.}{2003}]{labbe:1}
684: {Labb{\' e}}, I., et~al. 2003, AJ, 125, 1107
685:
686: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Le Fevre} et~al.}{{Le Fevre}
687: et~al.}{2004}]{lefevre:1}
688: {Le Fevre}, O., et~al. 2004, A\&A submitted (astro-ph/0403628)
689:
690: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Lilly} et~al.}{{Lilly}
691: et~al.}{1996}]{lilly:1}
692: {Lilly}, S.~J., et~al. 1996, ApJ, 460, L1
693:
694: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Madau} et~al.}{{Madau}
695: et~al.}{1996}]{madau:96}
696: {Madau}, P., et~al. 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388
697:
698: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Madau}, {Pozzetti}, \& {Dickinson}}{{Madau}
699: et~al.}{1998}]{mad_poz_dick1}
700: {Madau}, P., {Pozzetti}, L., \& {Dickinson}, M. 1998, ApJ, 498, 106
701:
702: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Mobasher} et~al.}{{Mobasher}
703: et~al.}{2004}]{mobasher:1}
704: {Mobasher}, B., et~al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L167
705:
706: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Pascarelle}, {Lanzetta}, \& {Fern{\'
707: a}ndez-Soto}}{{Pascarelle} et~al.}{1998}]{plf}
708: {Pascarelle}, S.~M., {Lanzetta}, K.~M., \& {Fern{\' a}ndez-Soto}, A. 1998,
709: ApJ, 508, L1
710:
711: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Salvato} et~al.}{{Salvato}
712: et~al.}{2004}]{salvato:1}
713: {Salvato}, M., et~al. 2004, in preparation
714:
715: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Schirmer} et~al.}{{Schirmer}
716: et~al.}{2003}]{schirmer:1}
717: {Schirmer}, M., et~al. 2003, A\&A, 407, 869
718:
719: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Snigula} et~al.}{{Snigula}
720: et~al.}{2002}]{snigula:1}
721: {Snigula}, J., et~al. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1329
722:
723: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Somerville} et~al.}{{Somerville}
724: et~al.}{2004}]{somerville:2}
725: {Somerville}, R.~S., et~al. 2004, ApJ, 600, L171
726:
727: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Somerville}, {Primack}, \&
728: {Faber}}{{Somerville} et~al.}{2001}]{somerville}
729: {Somerville}, R.~S., {Primack}, J.~R., \& {Faber}, S.~M. 2001, MNRAS, 320, 504
730:
731: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Steidel} et~al.}{{Steidel}
732: et~al.}{1999}]{steidel:1}
733: {Steidel}, C.~C., et~al. 1999, ApJ, 519, 1
734:
735: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Szokoly} et~al.}{{Szokoly}
736: et~al.}{2003}]{szokoly:1}
737: {Szokoly}, G.~P., et~al. 2003, ApJ submitted (astro-ph/0312324)
738:
739: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{Wolf} et~al.}{{Wolf} et~al.}{2004}]{wolf:1}
740: {Wolf}, C., et~al. 2004, A\&A, 421, 913
741:
742: \end{thebibliography}
743:
744: \begin{figure}
745: \epsscale{1.1}
746: \plotone{f1.eps}
747: \caption{The distribution of galaxies in the rest-frame, 1500
748: \AA\ absolute magnitude vs. redshift space, slightly smoothed with a Gaussian
749: kernel. The red colors refer to the K-selected galaxies of the
750: GOODS-South field, the blue and the green colors to B and I selected
751: galaxies of the FDF. The lowest contour corresponds to
752: 0.75 galaxies/arcmin$^2$/mag per unit redshift bin; the others give
753: the 2.5, 3.75, 6.25, 8.75, 11.25 and 13.75 galaxies/arcmin$^2$/mag per
754: unit redshift bin density levels.
755: For a better comparison of the
756: FDF and GOODS-South samples at the faint-end, we chose
757: the completeness limit of the
758: GOODS-South as
759: the magnitude cut-off for all samples.
760: The solid circles show the best-fit values
761: of $M_\ast$, with the errorbars of the K determinations (similar or smaller
762: errors are derived in I and B).
763: \label{fig:sfr:cont_absmag_fdf_goods}}
764: \end{figure}
765:
766: \clearpage
767:
768: \begin{figure*}
769: %\epsscale{0.92}
770: \epsscale{1.}
771: \plotone{f2.eps}
772: \caption{The four plots at the top show the SFR as a function of
773: redshift derived from the 1500 \AA\ luminosity densities computed
774: from the B-selected (blue), I (green) and I+B-selected (black) FDF, and
775: K-selected (red) GOODS-South field. The points are connected by the
776: thick lines for clarity. These SFRs are based on a faint-end slope of the LF
777: of -1.07 as derived from the FDF and GOODS data. The
778: dotted lines show the effect of assuming a slope of -1.6.
779: The grey-shaded region shows the effect of dust corrections
780: with correction factors between 5 and 9, following \citet{adelberger:1}.
781: The grey symbols show the results
782: \citep[taken from the table of][]{somerville}
783: of \citet[ circled crosses]{plf},
784: \citet[ open circles]{steidel:1},
785: \citet[ open triangles]{madau:96},
786: \citet[ open squares]{mad_poz_dick1}, and
787: \citep[taken from ][]{bunker:1}
788: \citet[ filled triangles]{iwata:1},
789: \citet[ filled squares]{giavalisco:2},
790: \citet[ filled circles]{bouwens:2003},
791: \citet[ hexagonal crosses]{bouwens:2004}, \citet[ filled pentagons]{fontana:1},
792: \citet[ open star]{bunker:1},
793: \citet[ inverted filled triangles]{bbi:1}. The plots at
794: the bottom show the SFRs of the four catalogues together (left) and
795: the SFRs derived considering the contributions of the galaxies
796: brighter than $L_\ast^I$ only (right).
797: \label{fig:sfr:sfr_fdf_goods}}
798: \end{figure*}
799:
800:
801:
802: \end{document}
803:
804: %%
805: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
806:
807: % http://www.eso.org/science/goods/releases/20040430/