Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T17:06:29.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Environmental effects on star formation main sequence in the COSMOS field

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2021

Solohery M. Randriamampandry
Affiliation:
South African Astronomical Observatory, P.O. Box 9, Observatory 7935, Cape Town, South Africa, email: [email protected] A&A, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences, University of Antananarivo, B.P. 906, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar
Mattia Vaccari
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of the Western Cape, Robert Sobukwe Road, Bellville7535, South Africa INAF - Istituto di Radioastronomia, via Gobetti 101, I-40129 Bologna, Italy
Kelley M. Hess
Affiliation:
ASTRON, the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, PO Box 2, 7990AADwingeloo, The Netherlands Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700AVGroningen, The Netherlands
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 investigate the relationship between environment and star formation main sequence (the relationship between stellar mass and star formation rate) to shed new light on the effects of the environments on star-forming galaxies. We use the large VLA-COSMOS 3 GHz catalogue that consist of star-forming galaxies (SFGs) and active galactic nuclei (AGN) in three different environments (field, filament, cluster) and for different galaxy types. We examine for the first time a comparative analysis for the distribution of SFGs with respect to the star formation main sequence (MS) consensus region from the literature, taking into account galaxy environment and using radio selected sample at 0.1 ≤ z ≤ 1.2 drawn from one of the deepest COSMOS radio surveys. We find that, as observed previously, SFRs increase with redshift independent on the environments. Furthermore, we observe that SFRs versus M* relation is flat in all cases, irrespective of the redshift and environments.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Astronomical Union

References

Bruzual, G., Charlot, S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chabrier, G., 2003, PASP, 115, 763 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Sobral, D., Scoville, N., & Aragon-Calvo, M., 2015, ApJ, 805, 121 10.1088/0004-637X/805/2/121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darvish, B., Mobasher, B., Martin, D. C., Sobral, D., Scoville, N., et al., 2017, ApJ, 837, 16 10.3847/1538-4357/837/1/16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennicutt, R. C. J., 1998, ApJ, 498, 541 10.1086/305588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laigle, C., McCracken, H. J., Ilbert, O., Hsieh, B. C., & Davidzon, I., 2016, ApJS, 224, 24 10.3847/0067-0049/224/2/24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smolčić, V., Delvecchio, I., Zamorani, G., Baran, N., Novak, M., et al., 2017, A&A, 602, A2 Google Scholar
Speagle, J. S., Steinhardt, C. L., Capak, P. L., & Silverman, J. D., 2014, ApJS, 214, 15 CrossRefGoogle Scholar