neaple

Mapping the evolution of galaxies in different environments since z~1.2 P. Popesso (Excellence Cluster Universe, Garching) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Outline   A theoretical framework   How to define the environment   Evolution of the SFR-­‐density relation   Dependence of SF activity on merger state   SFR in massive halos   Main sequence as a function of the environment   conclusions Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December The theoretical framework • Cosmic Web components: nodes, filaments, walls, sheets, voids. • Distribution of gas in the Cosmic Web (EAGLE simulations, Schaye et al. 2015). The red and blue colors indicate a high and low gas temperature, respectively. Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Environment first order effects: morphology The disk angular momentum comes from filaments and increases over time, building up disks from the inside out (Pishon et al. 2011) • low-­‐mass disk galaxies spin in a direction that is aligned to their accretion filaments, • high-­‐mass spheroidal galaxies spin perpendicular to their filaments (Codis et al. 2012) •  observationally confirmed in the SDSS sample (see Tempel et al. 2013a,b)  Naturally leads to morphology-­‐density relation Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Environment first order effects: cold gas supply Observed cold accretion in proto-­‐disk at z~3 (Martin et al. 2015) Simulation of cold gas accretion EAGLE simulation (Shaye et al. 2015) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Environment first order effects: cold gas supply Dekel et al. (2013) Disruption of cold streams in massive halos (Keres et al. 2009) •  cold accretion along filaments (cold accretion mode) •  cold gas starvation in massive halos (hot accretion mode)) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Environment second order effects:   Galaxy galaxy interaction (tidal stripping, harassment)   Ram pressure stripping    Starvation/ strangulation Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Environment second order effects:   Galaxy galaxy interaction (tidal stripping, harassment)   Ram pressure stripping    Starvation/ strangulation Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Environemnt vs. self regulation DeGraf et al. 2014) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December The role of environment: effects and limitations First order effect Van Der Woort et al. (2011) Second order effect Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Weinmann et al. (2010) How to define the environment   Number of neighbors (Nth closest neighbor, physical aperture)   Halo mass X-­‐ray observations (msssive groups and clusters), optical selection (low mass groups)   Cosmic web components (nodes, filaments, wall, voids) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December How to define the environment   Number of neighbors (Nth closest neighbor, physical aperture)   Halo mass   Cosmic web components (nodes, filaments, wall, voids) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December How to define the environment   Number of neighbors (Nth closest neighbor, physical aperture)   Halo mass   Effect of galaxy galaxy interaction: e.g. tidal stripping, cannibalism   Gravitational effects and galaxy-­‐ICM interaction: e.g. starvation, ram pressure stripping Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December How to define the environment Guo et al. (2011) mock catalog 3D distributions Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December How to define the environment Observed projected overdensity Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December SFR-­‐density relation Dekel et al. (2013) Elbaz et al. 2007) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Thomas et al. (2010) SFR-­‐density relation Ziparo et al. (2014) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December SFR-­‐density relation Ziparo et al. (2014) Ziparo et al. (2014) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December SFR-­‐density relation in clusters Tran et al. (2015) Reversal of the SFR-­‐density relation within clusters Tran et al. 2009, but see also Santos et al. 2014, Smail et al. 2013) Are they real clusters (no or very poor X-­‐ray detection)? What is their dynamical status? Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Dependence on merger state Dekel et al. 2013 Tran et al. 2009 Smail et al. 2013 Santos et al. 2014 Popesso et al. (2014) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Dependence on merger state Tran et al. (2009) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Dependence on merger state Tran et al. (2009) Possible explanation: Low mass group galaxies are still fed by cold accretion until the structures merge to form a more massive clusters Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December SF in groups vs field The group galaxy IR LF (per comoving volume) versus the global IR LF: proxy for SFR distribution @ z~1 the group galaxy IR LF is providing the LIRG and ULIRG galaxy population Popesso et al. (2014a) Magnelli, Popesso et al. (2013) Gruppioni et (2013) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Contribution of groups to the CSFH Popesso et al. (2014a) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Contribution of groups to the CSFH groups field Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Normal SF galaxies Very active galaxies starbursts Clustering of SF galaxies LIRGs & ULIRGs <Mhalo> 1013M 0.6<z<1.4 Georgakakis et al (2014) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Magliocchetti et al. (2014) The peak of the SF activity as f(z,Mhalo) Wang et al. (2012) halo model relates stellar mass, halo mass and SFR on the basis of clustering of IR detected galaxies in Hermes (Oliver et al. 2010) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Main Sequence vs environment The local Universe: SDSS galaxies at z< 0.2 Popesso et al in prep. Flattening of the MS (see also Erfanianfar et al. 2015, Whitaker et al. 2012) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December The MS evolution Stellar mass 1011 M SDSS (Renzini et al. 2015) 0.1 redshift 2.2 Only FIR data!!! 1010 M
COSMOS (Elbaz et al. 2007) COSMOS + GOODS (Elbaz et al. 2011) GOODS (Daddi et al. 2007 Rodighiero et al. 2014) Popesso et al. in prep Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Popesso et al. in prep The MS evolution: the dispersion Environment + morphology Dotted line: bulge dominated galaxies Solid line: disk dominated galaxies z < 0.5 0.5 <z < 1 Isolated galaxies Filaments groups Erfanianfar et al. (2015) Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December Summary & Conclusions   Environment is intimately connected to the galaxy evolution (morphology/cold gas supply)   SFR-­‐density relation is likely flattening than reversing at high z   Dependence of SF activity on merger state: link to cold/hot accretion   Group galaxies, in particular, provide a significant contribution to CSFH at high z with a faster decline at later epochs   Groups and cluster galaxies contribute to flattening and larger dispersion of the MS up to z~1 Galaxy Evolution & Environment, Neaples 1 December