Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T14:10:00.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Building the red sequence through gas-rich major mergers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

Vivienne Wild
Affiliation:
Institut d'Astrophysique de Paris, CNRS, Université Pierre & Marie Curie, UMR 7095, 98bis bd Arago, 75014 Paris, France. email: [email protected]
C. Jakob Walcher
Affiliation:
European Space Agency, Keplerlaan 1, 2200AG Noordwijk, The Netherlands
Peter H. Johansson
Affiliation:
Universitäts-Sternwarte München, Scheinerstr. 1, D-81679 München, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Understanding the details of how the red sequence is built is a key question in galaxy evolution. What are the relative roles of gas-rich vs. dry mergers, major vs. minor mergers or galaxy mergers vs. gas accretion? In a recent paper (Wild et al. 2009), we compare hydrodynamic simulations with observations to show how gas-rich major mergers result in galaxies with strong post-starburst spectral features, a population of galaxies easily identified in the real Universe using optical spectra. Using spectra from the VVDS deep survey with <z> = 0.7, and a principal component analysis technique to provide indices with high enough SNR, we find that 40% of the mass flux onto the red-sequence could enter through a strong post-starburst phase, and thus through gas-rich major mergers. The deeper samples provided by next generation galaxy redshift surveys will allow us to observe the primary physical processes responsible for the shut-down in starformation and build-up of the red sequence.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Arnouts, S., Walcher, C. J., Fèvre, O. L., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 137Google Scholar
Bell, E. F., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, S. M., Willmer, C. N. A., Wolf, C., et al. 2007, ApJ, 665, 265Google Scholar
Johansson, P. H., Naab, T., & Burkert, A., 2009, ApJ, 690, 802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonsson, P., Cox, T. J., Primack, J. R., & Somerville, R. S., 2006, ApJ, 637, 255Google Scholar
Walcher, C. J., Lamareille, F., Vergani, D., et al. 2008, A&A, 491, 713Google Scholar
Wild, V., Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wild, V., Walcher, C. J., Johansson, P. H., et al. , 2009, MNRAS, 395, 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar