Normalized to: Souchereau, H.
[1]
oai:arXiv.org:1809.10705 [pdf] - 1834061
Quiescent Galaxy Size and Spectroscopic Evolution: Combining HSC Imaging
and Hectospec Spectroscopy
Submitted: 2018-09-27, last modified: 2018-12-13
We explore the relations between size, stellar mass and average stellar
population age (indicated by D$_n4000$ indices) for a sample of $\sim11000$
intermediate-redshift galaxies from the SHELS spectroscopic survey (Geller et
al. 2014) augmented by high-resolution Subaru Telescope Hyper Suprime-Cam
imaging. In the redshift interval $0.1<z<0.6$, star forming galaxies are on
average larger than their quiescent counterparts. The mass-complete sample of
$\sim3500$ $M_*>10^{10}\, M_\odot$ quiescent galaxies shows that the average
size of a $10^{11}\, M_\odot$ quiescent galaxy increases by $\lesssim25\%$ from
$z\sim0.6$ to $z\sim0.1$. This growth rate is a function of stellar mass: the
most massive ($M_*>10^{11}\, M_\odot$) galaxies grow significantly more slowly
in size than an order of magnitude less massive quiescent systems that grow by
70\% in the $0.1\lesssim z\lesssim0.3$ redshift interval. For $M_*<10^{11}\,
M_\odot$ galaxies age and size are anti-correlated at fixed mass; more massive
quiescent systems show no significant trend in size with average stellar
population age. The evolution in absolute and fractional abundances of
quiescent systems at intermediate redshift are also a function of galaxy
stellar mass. The suite of evolutionary trends suggests that galaxies more
massive than $\sim10^{11}\, M_\odot$ have mostly assembled their mass by
$z\sim0.6$. Quiescent galaxies with lower stellar masses show more complex
evolution that is characterized by a combination of individual quiescent galaxy
size growth (through mergers) and an increase in the size of newly quenched
galaxies joining the population at later times (progenitor bias). The
$M_*\sim10^{10}\, M_\odot$ population grows predominantly as a result of
progenitor bias. For $M_*\sim5\times10^{10}\, M_\odot$ quiescent galaxies,
mergers and progenitor bias make more comparable contributions to the size
growth.[abridged]