Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): the galaxy stellar mass function at z < 0.06

By I. Baldry, S. Driver, J. Loveday, E. Taylor, Lee S. Kelvin, J. Liske, P. Norberg, A. Robotham, S. Brough, Andrew M. Hopkins and 11 more. 2011

442 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We determine the low-redshift field galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) using an area of 143 deg 2 from the first three years of the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey. The magnitude limits of this redshift survey are r < 19.4 mag over two-thirds and 19.8 mag over one-third of the area. The GSMF is determined from a sample of 5210 galaxies using a densitycorrected maximum volume method. This efficiently overcomes the issue of fluctuations in the number density versus redshift. With H0 = 70 km s −1 Mpc −1 , the GSMF is well described

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65d31c779f8461a8b13f83565e4d5bceece69e0a

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 Electrical and Electronic Engineering

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

The COSMOS2015 galaxy stellar mass function . Thirteen billion years of stellar mass assembly in ten snapshots (2017, methodology): “C.1, together with the SMF of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS, Moustakas et al. 2013, 〈z〉 = 0.1) and the Galaxy And Mass Assembly survey (GAMA, Baldry et al. 2012, z < 0.06).”
First results from the IllustrisTNG simulations: the stellar mass content of groups and clusters of galaxies (2017, background): “Properly assigning mass to the central galaxies in large haloes is also critical for meaningfully comparing to observational results for the massive end of the galaxy stellar mass function (Baldry et al. 2012; Bernardi et al. 2013, 2017; D’Souza et al. 2015).”
MUFASA: Galaxy Formation Simulations With Meshless Hydrodynamics (2016, methodology): “At z = 0, our 50h−1Mpc fiducial Mufasa run is in remarkably good agreement with the Baldry et al. (2012) GSMF.”
UniverseMachine: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0−10 (2018, methodology): “Observational Constraints on Average SSFRs Publication Redshifts Type Area (deg2) Notes Salim et al. (2007) 0-0.2 UV 741 Bauer et al. (2013) 0-0.35 Hα 144 N Whitaker et al. (2014) 0-2.5 UV/IR 0.25 N Zwart et al. (2014) 0-3 Radio 1 IN Karim et al. (2011) 0.2-3 Radio 2 Kajisawa et al. (2010) 0.5-3.5 U”
The massive end of the luminosity and stellar mass functions: Dependence on the fit to the light profile (2013, background): “Although we all assume a Chabrier IMF, their estimates of φ(M∗) are more similar to one another than they are to ours.”
Galaxy formation in the Planck cosmology – I. Matching the observed evolution of star formation rates, colours and stellar masses (2014, methodology): “With respect to Henriques et al. (2013) we include new data sets from the UltraVISTA survey (Muzzin et al. 2013; Ilbert et al. 2013), the ZFOURGE survey (Tomczak et al. 2014) and the GAMA survey for the lowest redshift bin (Baldry et al. 2012).”
Consistent modelling of the meta-galactic UV background and the thermal/ionization history of the intergalactic medium (2018, background): “…metallicity of newly formed stars, obtained by integrating the mass-metallicity relation of Zahid et al. (2014) over the evolving galaxy stellar mass function of Baldry et al. (2012), Ilbert et al. (2013), Kajisawa et al. (2009), Lee et al. (2012) and Grazian et al. (2015) in the range 0 ∼< z ∼< 7.”
The EAGLE simulations of galaxy formation: the importance of the hydrodynamics scheme (2015, background): “For comparison, we show observational data taken from Sanderson et al. (2013), Gonzalez et al. (2013) and Kravtsov et al. (2014) as well as the SDSS image stacking result of Budzynski et al. (2014).”
Stellar masses of SDSS-III/BOSS galaxies at z ∼ 0.5 and constraints to galaxy formation models (2012, methodology): “In the local universe, recent results on the stellar mass function of galaxies include Blanton et al. (2003), Bell et al. (2003), Baldry et al. (2004), Baldry et al. (2006), Baldry et al. (2008), Li & White (2009), Baldry et al. (2012).”
Constraining Stellar-mass Black Hole Mergers in AGN Disks Detectable with LIGO (2017, methodology): “Range of parameters in Equation (1) and range of merger rate (see the text). a From Baldry et al. (2012). b From Miralda-Escudé & Gould (2000), Antonini (2014), Hailey et al. (2018). c fAGN∼0.1 for Seyfert AGNs (Ho 2008). fAGN∼0.3 with all LINERs and other low luminosity AGNs. d fd=fco+fg. fco comes”
Small-Scale Challenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm (2017, background): “At the small masses that most concern this review, dark matter halo counts follow dn/dM ∝ Mα with a steep slope αdm ' −1.9 compared to the observed stellar mass function slope of αg = −1.47 (Baldry et al. 2012, which is consistent with the updated GAMA results shown in Figure 5).”
Stellar Mass—Halo Mass Relation and Star Formation Efficiency in High-Mass Halos (2014, methodology): “6 of Baldry et al. (2012) with the following parameters: log10(M∗/M ) = 10.66, φ∗1 = 3.96 × 10−3 Mpc−3, α1 = −0.35, φ∗2 = 6.9 × 10−4 Mpc−3, α2 = −1.57.”