1 / 27

The E SO Dis tant C luster S urvey

The E SO Dis tant C luster S urvey (EDisCS) Study evolution of cluster galaxies and clusters in 20 fields with clusters at z=0.4 – 1.0.

shannon-brady
Download Presentation

The E SO Dis tant C luster S urvey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The ESO Distant Cluster Survey (EDisCS)Study evolution of cluster galaxies and clusters in 20 fields with clusters at z=0.4 – 1.0 P.I. S. White ( MPA-Garching, D )A. Aragón-Salamanca ( Nottingham, UK )R. Bender ( Munich, D )P. Best ( ROE, Scotland )M. Bremer ( Bristol, UK )S. Charlot ( MPA, D & IAP, F )D. Clowe ( Bonn, D)J. Dalcanton ( U.Washington, USA )B. Fort ( IAP, F )P. Jablonka ( OPM, F )G. Kauffmann ( MPA, D )Y. Mellier ( IAP, F )R. Pello ( OMP, F )B. Poggianti ( Padova, I ) H. Rottgering ( Leiden, NL )P. Schneider ( Bonn, D )D. Zaritsky ( U. Arizona, USA )M. Dantel ( OPM, F )G. De Lucia ( MPA, D )V. Desai ( U. Washington, USA )C. Halliday ( Padova, I )B. Milvang-Jensen ( MPE, D )S. Poirier ( OPM, F )G. Rudnick ( MPA, D )R. Saglia ( Munich, D )L. Simard ( U. Victoria, C )J. Varela ( Padova, I) + B. Vulcani (Padova, I) + J. Fritz (Padova, I) 7 “ITALIANI”

  2. TheESODistantClusterSurvey(EDisCS) 20 fields with clusters at z=0.42-0.96 • Deep imaging: VRIJK at z~0.8, BVIJK at z~0.5 (11n FORS2/VLT + 20n SOFI/NTT) • HST/ACS imaging for 10 most distant clusters (80 orbits) • Spectroscopy: at least 4 FORS2 masks at long exposure to get spectra to I~23 (z~0.8) or 22 (z~0.5) (25n FORS2) • + follow-ups (XMM, MIPS/Spitzer, Halpha imaging, wide-field spectroscopy, GALEX …): • MIPS+IRAC data for all fields, some WF • WFI/2.2m RVI imaging for all 20 fields (84hr WFI) ESO LP allocation: 36n VLT/FORS2 + 20n NTT/SOFI

  3. CL1037.5-1243 z=0.58 CL1054.4-1245 z=0.75 CL1354.1-1231 z=0.76 CL1202.4-1224 z=0.42 CL1232.3-1250 z=0.54 EDisCS Imaging

  4. CL1216.4-1201 z=0.79 CL1037.5-1243 z=0.58 Morphology  ACS/HST

  5. TheESODistantClusterSurvey(EDisCS) 20 fields with clusters at z=0.42-0.96 • Deep imaging: VRIJK at z~0.8, BVIJK at z~0.5 (11n FORS2/VLT + 20n SOFI/NTT) • HST/ACS mosaic imaging for 10 most distant clusters (80 orbits) • Spectroscopy: at least 4 FORS2 masks at long exposure to get spectra to I~23 (z~0.8) or 22 (z~0.5) (25n FORS2) • + follow-ups (XMM, MIPS/Spitzer, Halpha imaging, wide-field spectroscopy, GALEX…): • MIPS+IRAC data for all fields, some WF • WFI/2.2m RVI imaging for all 20 fields (84hr WFI) ESO LP allocation: 36n VLT/FORS2 + 20n NTT/SOFI

  6. Spectroscopy 25 nights of FORS2 MXU spectroscopy  average of 35 members/cluster • z’s and emission lines to I~23 (over ~3.5mag) • Line strength to I~22.5 • ’s to I~21.5

  7. TheESODistantClusterSurvey(EDisCS) 20 fields with clusters at z=0.42-0.96 • Deep imaging: VRIJK at z~0.8, BVIJK at z~0.5 (11n FORS2/VLT + 20n SOFI/NTT) • HST/ACS mosaic imaging for 10 most distant clusters (80 orbits) • Spectroscopy: at least 4 FORS2 masks at long exposure to get spectra to I~23 (z~0.8) or 22 (z~0.5) (25n FORS2) • + follow-ups (XMM, MIPS/Spitzer, Halpha imaging, wide-field spectroscopy, GALEX…): • MIPS+IRAC data for all fields, some WF • WFI/2.2m RVI imaging for all 20 fields (84hr WFI)+ IMACS/Magellan LR spectra… ESO LP allocation: 36n VLT/FORS2 + 20n NTT/SOFI

  8. Wide range of cluster masses • Wider range of masses than previous surveys • EDisCS structures progenitors of “typical” clusters today • Allows to study clusters, groups and field on homogeneous data Milvang-Jensen et al. 2008

  9. 19 clusters, 10 groups (8+ members), poor groups and 120 usable field galaxies Cl1232 0.54 1080 54 Cl 1216 0.79 1018 67 Cl1138 0.48 732 49 Cl1411 0.52 710 22 Cl1301 0.48 687 35 Cl1353 0.59 666 20 Cl1354 0.76 648 21 Cl105411 0.70 589 49 Cl1227 0.64 574 22 Cl1138a 0.45 542 14 Cl1037a 0.43 537 45 Cl1103 0.96 534 10+ Cl1202 0.42 518 19 Cl1059 0.46 510 41 Cl105412 0.75 504 36 Cl1018 0.47 486 33 Cl1354a 0.60 433 15 Cl1227a 0.58 432 11 Cl1040 0.70 418 30 Redshift, sigma, N of members Cl1301a 0.40 391 17 Cl1103a 0.63 336 15 Cl1037 0.58 319 16 Cl1040b 0.78 259 8 Cl1103b 0.70 252 11 Cl105411a 0.61 227 8 Cl1420 0.50 218 24 Cl105412a 0.73 182 10 Cl1040a 0.63 179 11 Cl1119 0.55 166 17 + others

  10. 24 refereed papers published or submitted, + some ongoing studies.…. see Poggianti et al. June 2009 Messenger 136 54 RED GALAXIES V-I Well-defined relation between colour and luminosity (red sequence) for clusters up to z=1.5, of galaxies whose SF terminated well before the epoch we observe them Not all today’s red sequence galaxies have been red and passive since high-z Downsizing of the red sequence: most massive/luminous galaxies stopped forming stars, and were on the red sequence at an earlier epoch than less massive ones De Lucia et al. 2004 I magnitude

  11. De Lucia et al. 2007 Rudnick et al. 2009 Number ratio of red luminous-to-faint galaxies 0.0 redshift 0.8 Build-up of the faint end of the red galaxy LF – Field has more faint red galaxies than clusters at z=0.7, but fewer at z=0.5 Deficit of faint, red galaxies in distant clusters compared to nearby clusters. Also from spectral line indices analysis (Sanchez-Blazquez et al. 2009) BCG stell. pops formed at z 2, no significant evolution in mass since z=1 (whiley et al. 2008)

  12. On the way to the red sequence: evolution of the % of SF-ing galaxies EDisCS z = 0.4-0.8 Sloan z = 0.04-0.1 Fraction of members with OII within R200 500 1000 500 1000 Velocity dispersion Poggianti et al. 2006

  13. MORPHOLOGICAL EVOLUTION IN CLUSTERS: from spiral to S0 GALAXIES Desai et al. (2007) S0 % Elliptical % E + S0 % Spiral+Irr % Also Simard et al. 2009 for evolution of EDisCS early-type fraction (Dressler et al. 1997, Fasano et al. 2000, Postman et al. 2005, Smith et al. 2005 – but also Andreon et al. 1998, Holden et al. 2009)

  14. Desai et al. (2007) Morphological fractions vs redshift Most of the morphological evolution in luminous galaxies has occurred since z=0.5, during the last 5 Gyrs.

  15. Evolution of the morphological fractions as a function of velocity dispersion AGAIN, THE STRONGEST EVOLUTION BETWEEN z=1 AND TODAY APPEARS TO HAPPEN IN GALAXIES IN LOW-MASS CLUSTERS WINGS + EDisCS Poggianti et al. 2009b ApJ Letter

  16. The fraction of passive galaxies observed at high-z is about the fraction of galaxies that were already in groups (M > 3 X 10^12) at z=2.5 • The fraction of passive galaxies observed at low-z is about the fraction of galaxies that have spent at least the last 3 Gyr (since z=0.3) in clusters (M > 10^14) Poggianti et al. 2006

  17. Morphology-density relation Poggianti et al. 2008

  18. STAR FORMATION-LOCAL DENSITY RELATION Anticorrelated Uncorrelated Star-forming fraction Mean(EW) of OII galaxies Local density Local density Z=0 (red, SDSS clusters) Z=0.4-0.8 (black, EDisCS) Based on OII line Poggianti et al. 2008 The EDisCS star formation-density relation qualitatively resembles that observed at low-z: higher density regions have fewer star-forming galaxies, and the average EW(OII) of star-forming galaxies is independent of local density. Thus the SF in star-forming galaxies not affected by local environment? No….

  19. Clusters + groups at z~0.4-0.8 Average SFR and sSFR vs density All galaxies (black) SFing galaxies (blue) SFR and SSFR in star-forming galaxies peaks at intermediate densities at high-z? Poggianti et al. 2008 In summary: The fraction of star-forming galaxies and the SFR in star-forming galaxies, at least in clusters depend on local density.

  20. THE SFR-MASS RELATION IN CLUSTERS, GROUPS AND FIELD Vulcani et al. submitted Z= 0.4 – 0.6 Z = 0.6 – 0.8 Log SFR Log galaxy stellar mass Lower median SFR in cluster star-forming galaxies of a given mass then in the field -- Groups like the field?? Average SFR in star-forming galaxies varies with galaxy environment at a fixed galaxy stellar mass

  21. For a given Hubble type, no trend of SF with local density SF-density = Morphology-density in high-z clusters Mean SFR SFing % Density Poggianti et al. 2008

  22. VIRIALIZED STRUCTURES AT HIGHER REDSHIFT WERE DENSER BOTH IN GALAXY NUMBER DENSITY AND (DM) MASS !!!……AND THE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION DOES NOT DEPEND ON CLUSTER/GROUPS MASS !!! Physical (3D) Projected Projected local density distribution Z=0.6 z=0 Physical (3D) density distribution in structures of different masses Poggianti et al. 2010

  23. WHAT TIMESCALE? POST-STARBURST SPECTRA IN DISTANT CLUSTERS strong Balmer absorption and no line detected in emission SF ended abruptly sometime during the last Gyr post-starburst galaxies 25%of the distant cluster galaxy populationDressler & Gunn 1983, Couch & Sharples 1987, Dressler et al. 1999, Poggianti et al. 1999, Tran et al. 2001, 2004 Larger % in clusters than in field at similar z’s (Dressler et al. 1999, Poggianti et al. 1999, Tran et al. 2003,2004, now Ediscs, Ma et al… – but Balogh et al. 1999) SF truncation in clusters

  24. In EDisCS we find that the incidence of k+a galaxies at our redshifts depends strongly on environment At z=0.4-0.8, post-starburst galaxies more frequent in more massive clusters and in some of the groups… …those groups with a low OII fraction for their sigma Massive S0 and Sa in transition More massive clusters have a higher proportion of k+a galaxies… Dusty starburst candidates are frequent in all environments, and are especially frequent in groups Poggianti et al. 2009a

  25. GROUP “BIMODALITY” ? THE KEY? Evidence: some groups look like “mini-clusters”, some look like field (at the same mass) for their star forming fraction, morphologies, post-starburst incidence etc Poggianti et al. 2006, 2008, 2009a, Wilman et al. 2005, 2009, Kautsch et al. 2008, Jeltema et al. 2007 – also Zabludoff & Mulchaey 1998…. Not simply “true” vs “false” groups? (eg. X-ray groups Jeltema et al. 2007) – hard to explain as wrong mass estimate Difference between two types of groups ought to help to understand what is going on at the group level

  26. Stay tuned for galaxy stellar mass functions as a function of environment, redshift and morphological type (Vulcani et al. in prep.) !!

  27. For the Hall of Fame: The population of cluster and groups passive galaxies today is composed of two families: “primordial”, massive galaxies that finished forming stars at z≥2 (massive ellipticals – 20% of today’s 80% passive galaxies in clusters), and “quenched/declining” galaxies that stopped forming stars at later epochs due to a combination of intrinsic properties and environmental effects (mostly S0s, mostly non massive, and not all of the S0s, 50-60% of today’s 80%) An open question (two…): What is/are the physical process/esses responsible for the two passive families? Eg. From cold to hot gas accretion in massive haloes at high-z (primordial), and some “classic” environmental effects at lower-z (quenched)? Can it be the same process? How can we actually DISCRIMINATE OBSERVATIONALLY? Why are some groups efficient at turning star-forming, late-type galaxies into passive, early-type galaxies and some are not? What are the physical processes involved?

More Related