On the galaxy stellar mass function, the mass-metallicity relation, and the implied baryonic mass function

By I. Baldry, Karl Glazebrook, S. Driver. 2008

354 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A comparison between published field galaxy stellar mass fun ctions (GSMFs) shows that the cosmic stellar mass density is in the range 4‐8 per cent of the baryon density (assuming b = 0.045). There remain significant sources of uncertainty for the du st correction and underlying stellar mass-to-light ratio even assuming a reaso nable universal stellar initial mass function. We determine the z < 0.05 GSMF using the New York University ‐ Value-Added Galaxy Catalog sample of 49968 galaxies derived from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and various estimates of stellar mass. The GSMF shows clear evidence for a low-mass upturn and is fitted with a double Schechter function that has �2 ≃ −1.6. At masses below ∼ 10 8.5 M⊙, the GSMF may be significantly incomplete because of missing l ow surface-brightness galaxies. One interpretation of the stellar mass-metallicity re lation is that it is primarily caused by a lower fraction of available baryons converted to stars in l ow-mass galaxies. Using this principal, we determine a simple relationship between baryonic mass and stellar mass and present an ‘implied baryonic mass function’. This function has a fai nt-end slope, �2 ≃ −1.9. Thus, we find evidence that the slope of the low-mass end of the galax y mass function could plausibly be as steep as the halo mass function. We illustrate the relationship between halo baryonic mass function → galaxy baryonic mass function → GSMF. This demonstrates the requirement for peak galaxy formation efficiency at baryonic masses ∼ 10 11 M⊙ corresponding to a minimum in feedback effects. The baryonic-infall efficien cy may have levelled off at lower masses.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/00d9bc45618934829c34a26afc2975ef90f2e4be

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

1. P. Hopkins
2. L. Hernquist
3. Volker Springel
4. Simon D. M. White
5. R. Dav'e
6. R. Somerville
7. C. Conroy
8. A. Dekel

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

1. F. V. D. Bosch
2. Risa Wechsler
3. Simon D. M. White
4. P. Behroozi
5. C. Conroy
6. H. Mo
7. Xiaohu Yang
8. P. Oesch

In Instrumentation

1. P. Hopkins
2. L. Hernquist
3. Simon D. M. White
4. C. Conroy
5. Volker Springel
6. R. Dav'e
7. R. Somerville
8. A. Dekel

Citations in the corpus

• The Dynamical and Chemical Evolution of Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies with GEAR (2009, methodology): “Following Sawala et al. (2011), we considered two different slopes for the faintend of the stellar mass function, −1.15 (Li & White 2009) and −1.58 (Baldry et al. 2008).”
• The WIRCam Deep Survey I. Counts, colours, and mass-functions derived from near-infrared imaging in the CFHTLS deep fields (2011, methodology): “We note that, as observed by a number of previous authors (e.g. Baldry et al. 2008; Ilbert et al. 2010; Pozzetti et al. 2010), when the galaxy stellar mass function is measured over a broad mass range such as we have, it is not well fit by a Schechter function.”
• Radiative feedback and the low efficiency of galaxy formation in low-mass haloes at high redshift (2013, background): “This has been interpreted as a strong evidence of a drop in the efficiency of galaxy formation at low masses (van den Bosch et al. 2007; Baldry et al. 2008; Kravtsov 2010).”
• MASS AND ENVIRONMENT AS DRIVERS OF GALAXY EVOLUTION. II. THE QUENCHING OF SATELLITE GALAXIES AS THE ORIGIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS (2011, background): “Not least, the double-Schechter form for the overall mass function of galaxies (Baldry et al 2008) emerges naturally from the model.”
• NEW CONSTRAINTS ON THE EVOLUTION OF THE STELLAR-TO-DARK MATTER CONNECTION: A COMBINED ANALYSIS OF GALAXY–GALAXY LENSING, CLUSTERING, AND STELLAR MASS FUNCTIONS FROM z = 0.2 to z = 1 (2011, methodology): “For our z1 sample, we have compared the COSMOS mass function with previously published mass functions from SDSS (Li & White 2009; Baldry et al. 2008; Panter et al. 2007).”
• The stellar mass-halo mass relation of isolated field dwarfs : a critical test of ΛCDM at the edge of galaxy formation (2016, methodology): “This difference has been noted previously in the literature (e.g. Baldry et al. 2008) but to date has remained unexplained.”
• De re metallica: the cosmic chemical evolution of galaxies (2018, background): “Galaxies contain a smaller fraction of baryons with respect to the cosmic average, and this fraction increases with mass up to halo mass of the order of 1012M (e.g., Baldry et al., 2008; Papastergis et al., 2012).”
• Galaxy formation in the Planck cosmology – I. Matching the observed evolution of star formation rates, colours and stellar masses (2014, background): “Guo et al. (2011) set αinter = 0.5 and show that this leads to bulge sizes in reasonable agreement with SDSS data.”
• How do galaxies populate dark matter haloes (2009, methodology): “Similar numbers have previously been derived from analogous arguments by Mandelbaum et al. (2006) and Baldry et al. (2008), among others.”
• The distribution of stellar mass in the low‐redshift Universe (2009, methodology): “4 of Baldry et al. (2008) since they adopt h = 0.7) the estimated completeness is still well above 70%.”
• THE COS-HALOS SURVEY: PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AND BARYONIC MASS IN THE LOW-REDSHIFT CIRCUMGALACTIC MEDIUM (2014, background): “Traditionally, baryon counting in this regime has focused on a galaxy’s stars, cold ISM, and its hot X-ray halo gas (Bell et al. 2003; Klypin et al. 2011; Baldry et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2009; McGaugh et al. 2010; Anderson & Bregman 2010; Papastergis et al. 2012; Gupta et al. 2012).”
• MASS AND ENVIRONMENT AS DRIVERS OF GALAXY EVOLUTION IN SDSS AND zCOSMOS AND THE ORIGIN OF THE SCHECHTER FUNCTION (2010, background): “In their analysis of the SDSS DR4, Baldry et al. (2008) found also a double Schechter function with αs of -1.58 and -0.46, i.e. with Δαs ~ 1.12, i.e. consistent with our own analysis, and also with the expected value of Δαs from our model.”
• A DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF THE BARYONIC MASS FUNCTION OF GALAXIES AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE GALACTIC BARYON FRACTION (2012, methodology): “…over the mass range M∗ ≈ 10 7 − 1012 M⊙, using statistical samples of tens of thousands of galaxies and a variety of stellar mass estimation techniques (Cole et al. 2001, Bell et al. 2003, Panter et al. 2007, Baldry et al. 2008, Li & White 2009, Yang et al. 2009, Baldry et al. 2012, to name a few).”
• Physical Models of Galaxy Formation in a Cosmological Framework (2014, background): “…main sequence” (SFMS; Noeske et al. 2007, Wuyts et al. 2011), the mean fraction of cold gas (fgas ≡ mgas/mstar) in the interstellar medium (ISM) (Baldry et al. 2008, Peeples & Shankar 2011), and the metallicity of stars or ISM gas (mass-metallicity relation, MZR; Gallazzi et al. 2005,…”