The Evolution of Disk Galaxies in the GOODS-South Field: Number Densities and Size Distribution

By S. Ravindranath, H. Ferguson, Christopher J. Conselice, M. Giavalisco, Mark Dickinson, E. Chatzichristou, D. D. Mello, S. M. Fall, J. Gardner, Norman Grogin and 11 more. 2004

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We examine the evolution of the sizes and number densities of disk galaxies using the high-resolution images obtained by the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS) with the Advanced Camera for Surveys on the Hubble Space Telescope. The multiwavelength images are used to classify galaxies based on their rest-frame B-band morphologies out to redshift z ~ 1.25. In order to minimize the effect of selection biases, we confine our analysis to galaxies that occupy the region of the magnitude-size plane where the survey is ~90% complete at all redshifts. The observed size distribution is consistent with a lognormal distribution as seen for the disk galaxies in the local universe and does not show any significant evolution over the redshift range 0.25 ≤ z ≤ 1.25. We find that the number densities of disk galaxies remains fairly constant over this redshift range, although a modest evolution by a factor of 4 may be possible within the 2 σ uncertainties.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5c20e2c922975b262636f94a5028b86d159cebc8

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

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

An interferometric CO survey of luminous submillimetre galaxies (2005, background): “…the former involving disk-galaxies with significant bulge components (e.g. Lilly et al. 1998), while the progenitor galaxies of SMGs at high redshift are much more likely to be gas-rich, disk-dominated systems with little or no bulge component (Wyse, Gilmore & Franx 1997; Ravindranath et al. 2004).”
Kinemetry of SINS High-Redshift Star-Forming Galaxies: Distinguishing Rotating Disks from Major Mergers (2008, background): “Existing prescriptions for measuring galaxymorphology use surface brightness information and rely solely on characteristics of the broadband emission (CAS: Conselice 2003; Gini /M20: Lotz et al. 2004; Sérsic fitting: Ravindranath et al. 2004; Cresci et al. 2006).”
THE ROLE OF COLD FLOWS IN THE ASSEMBLY OF GALAXY DISKS (2008, background): “…large galaxy disks must be assembled prior to z = 1 (Vogt et al. 1996; Roche et al. 1998; Lilly et al. 1998; Simard et al. 1999; Labbé et al. 2003; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Ferguson et al. 2004; Trujillo & Aguerri 2004; Barden et al. 2005; Sargent et al. 2007; Melbourne et al. 2007; Kanwar et…”
Size Evolution of the Most Massive Galaxies at 1.7 < z < 3 from GOODS NICMOS Survey Imaging (2008, methodology): “As shown by e.g., Ravindranath et al. (2004) there is a correlation between the Sérsic index n and Hubble type.”
The Assembly of Diversity in the Morphologies and Stellar Populations of High-Redshift Galaxies (2005, background): “…den Bergh et al. 1996; Abraham et al. 1996; Brinchmann et al. 1998; Lilly et al. 1998; Im et al. 1999; Simard et al. 1999; Im et al. 2002; Moustakas et al. 2004; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Stanford et al. 2004) and that the characteristic galaxy size has changed little since z 1 (Lilly et al. 1998).”
3D-HST+CANDELS: THE EVOLUTION OF THE GALAXY SIZE–MASS DISTRIBUTION SINCE z = 3 (2014, unknown): “2) or not at all (Lilly et al. 1998; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Barden et al. 2005).”
An Explanation for the Observed Weak Size Evolution of Disk Galaxies (2006, background): “Ravindranath et al. (2004) and Ferguson et al. (2004) presented size distributions for z .”
Resolved Galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field: Star Formation in Disks at High Redshift (2007, methodology): “Ravindranath et al. (2004) found that disk galaxies in the GOODS-S field at 0:25 < z < 1:0 do not show significant size evolution when selection effects are considered.”
Early and Rapid Merging as a Formation Mechanism of Massive Galaxies: Empirical Constraints (2005, background): “The first is that the morphological distribution of galaxies on the Hubble sequence is largely in place by z ∼ 1 (Conselice et al. 2005), with a similar number density of disk galaxies as today (Ravindranath et al. 2004).”
GEMS: Galaxy Fitting Catalogs and Testing Parametric Galaxy Fitting Codes: GALFIT and GIM2D (2007, methodology): “…authors have used a constant value of n = 2.5 or n = 2.0 to crudely distinguish earlytype (bulge-dominated) from late-type (disk-dominated) galaxies (e.g., Blanton et al. 2003; Shen et al. 2003; Hogg et al. 2004; Bell et al. 2004; Barden et al. 2005; McIntosh et al. 2005; Ravindranath et al. 2004).”
THE EVOLUTION OF GALAXY NUMBER DENSITY AT z < 8 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS (2016, background): “The red solid line show systems which have light profiles of ellipticals, the blue dotted shows disk profiles, and the green dashed line is an equal mixture of both. for the most massive systems (e.g., Ferguson et al. 2004; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Buitrago et al. 2013).”
Discriminating Between the Physical Processes that Drive Spheroid Size Evolution (2009, background): “…addition, observations have shown that disc sizes do not appear to evolve with redshift nearly as strongly as spheroid sizes (Ferguson et al. 2004; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Trujillo et al. 2004; Barden et al. 2005; Toft et al. 2007; Akiyama et al. 2008; Buitrago et al. 2008; Somerville et al.…”
DETAILED DECOMPOSITION OF GALAXY IMAGES. II. BEYOND AXISYMMETRIC MODELS (2009, background): “…the Tully-Fisher relation (e.g., Tully & Fisher 1977; Hinz et al. 2003; Bedregal et al. 2006), the evolution of disky galaxies (Simard et al. 2002; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Barden et al. 2005), the cosmic evolution of galaxy morphology (e.g., Lilly et al. 1998; Marleau & Simard 1998; Hathi et…”
GEMS: The Surface Brightness and Surface Mass Density Evolution of Disk Galaxies (2005, methodology): “For both the GOODS and the GEMS data sets the Ravindranath et al. (2004) surface brightness limit implies removing half to twothirds of all galaxies at 0:25 < z < 0:50 that are detected above the absolute magnitude limit and have a measured redshift.”
The Millennium Galaxy Catalogue: bulge–disc decomposition of 10 095 nearby galaxies (2006, methodology): “Using Hubble Space Telescope imaging, several statistically significant samples of high-redshift galaxies with measured structural parameters have been constructed (e.g. Simard et al. 2002; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Barden et al. 2005).”
The Detailed Star Formation History in the Spheroid, Outer Disk, and Tidal Stream of the Andromeda Galaxy (2006, background): “Afar as the structures are concerned, observations of high-redsift disk galaxies (e.g. Ferguson, Dickinson & Williams 2000; Ravindranath et al. 2004) suggest that disks were largely in place 8 Gyr ago.”
How Stellar Feedback Simultaneously Regulates Star Formation and Drives Outflows (2015, unknown): “…fromHopkins et al. (2010), Re(M⋆|z = 0) ≈ 5.28 kpc ( M⋆ 1010 M⊙ )0.25 , Re(M⋆, z) = Re(M⋆|z = 0)(1 + z)−0.6, (B3) which is based on a compilation of observations (Trujillo et al. 2004; Ravindranath et al. 2004; Ferguson et al. 2004; Barden et al. 2005; Toft et al. 2007; Akiyama et al. 2008).”