Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T14:00:05.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of nebular emission for SED modeling of distant star-forming galaxies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2012

Daniel Schaerer  and
Stephane de Barros
Daniel Schaerer
Affiliation:
Observatoire de Genève, Université de Genève, 51 Ch. des Maillettes, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland CNRS, IRAP, 14 Avenue E. Belin, 31400 Toulouse, France email: [email protected]
Stephane de Barros
Affiliation:
Observatoire de Genève, Université de Genève, 51 Ch. des Maillettes, 1290 Versoix, Switzerland
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.

We highlight and discuss the importance of accounting for nebular emission in the SEDs of high redshift galaxies, as lines and continuum emission can contribute significantly or subtly to broad-band photometry. Physical parameters such as the galaxy age, mass, star-formation rate, dust attenuation and others inferred from SED fits can be affected to different extent by the treatment of nebular emission.

We analyse a large sample of Lyman break galaxies from z ~ 3–6, and show some main results illustrating e.g. the importance of nebular emission for determinations of the mass–SFR relation, attenuation and age. We suggest that a fairly large scatter in such relations could be intrinsic. We find that the majority of objects (~ 60–70%) is better fit with SEDs accounting for nebular emission; the remaining galaxies are found to show relatively weak or no emission lines. Our modeling, and supporting empirical evidence, suggests the existence of two categories of galaxies, “starbursts” and “post-starbursts” (lower SFR and older galaxies) among the LBG population, and relatively short star-formation timescales.

Keywords

galaxies: starburstgalaxies: high-redshiftgalaxies: evolutiongalaxies: formation
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 7 , Symposium S284: The Spectral Energy Distribution of Galaxies , September 2011 , pp. 20 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2012

References

Anders, P. & Fritze-v. Alvensleben, U. 2003, A&A, 401, 1063Google Scholar
Atek, H., et al. 2011, ApJ, in press, arXiv1109.0639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolzonella, M., Miralles, J.-M., & Pelló, R. 2000, A&A, 363, 476Google Scholar
Bouche, N., et al. 2010, ApJ, 718, 1001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlot, S. & Longhetti, M. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daddi, E., Dickinson, M., Morrison, G., et al. 2007, ApJ, 670, 156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Barros, S., Schaerer, D., & Stark, D. 2011, A&A, in preparation (dB11)Google Scholar
de Barros, S., Schaerer, D., & Stark, D. 2011, SF2A meeting, arXiv:1111.***Google Scholar
Egami, E., Kneib, J.-P., Rieke, G. H., et al. 2005, ApJ, 618, L5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eyles, L. P., Bunker, A. J., Stanway, E. R., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 364, 443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fioc, M. & Rocca-Volmerange, B. 1999, A&A, 351, 869Google Scholar
Finlator, K., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1703Google Scholar
Kennicutt, R. C. Jr. 1998, ARAA, 36, 189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labbé, I., González, V., Bouwens, R. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 708, L26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. S., et al. 2009, ApJ, 695, 368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K. S., et al. 2011, arXiv:1111.1233Google Scholar
Lidman, C., et al. 2011, MNRAS, in press, arXiv1109.1333Google Scholar
Madau, P. 1995, ApJ, 441, 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maraston, C., et al. 2010, MNRAS, 407, 830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLinden, E. M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 730, 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Y., et al. 2010, ApJ, 724, 1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouchi, M., Shimasaku, K., Akiyama, M., et al. 2008, ApJS, 176, 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santini, P., Fontana, A., Grazian, A., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 751Google Scholar
Schaerer, D. & de Barros, S. 2009, A&A, 502, 423Google Scholar
Schaerer, D. & de Barros, S. 2010, A&A, 515, A73.Google Scholar
Schaerer, D., & de Barros, S., & Stark, D. 2011, A&A, in press, arXiv1110.4398SGoogle Scholar
Shim, H., Chary, R.-R., Dickinson, M., et al. 2011, ApJ, 738, 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., Bunker, A., et al. 2009, ApJ, 697, 1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, D. P., Ellis, R. S., Chiu, K., Ouchi, M., & Bunker, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 1628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trump, J. R., et al. 2011, ApJ, in press, arXiv1108.6075Google Scholar
van der Wel, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, in press, arXiv1107.5256Google Scholar
Zackrisson, E., Bergvall, N., & Leitet, E. 2008, ApJ, 676, L9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar