Strong size evolution of the most massive galaxies since z~2

By Ignacio Trujillo, Christopher J. Conselice, K. Bundy, M. C. Cooper, Peter Eisenhardt, Richard S. Ellis. 2007

412 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Using the combined capabilities of the large near-infrared Palomar/DEEP-2 survey, and the superb resolution of the Advanced Camera for Surveys HST camera, we explore the size evolution of 831 very massive galaxies (M_⋆ ≥ 10^(11)h^(−2)_(70) M_⊙) since z ~ 2. We split our sample according to their light concentration using the Sersic index n. At a given stellar mass, both low (n 2.5) concentrated objects were much smaller in the past than their local massive counterparts. This evolution is particularly strong for the highly concentrated (spheroid like) objects. At z ~ 1.5, massive spheroid-like objects were a factor of 4 (±0.4) smaller (i.e. almost two orders of magnitudes denser) than those we see today. These small sized, high-mass galaxies do not exist in the nearby Universe, suggesting that this population merged with other galaxies over several billion years to form the largest galaxies we see today.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a3ef0248474b5fadad1f6fc6eed00572d17fb41b

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

AGN-driven quenching of star formation: morphological and dynamical implications for early-type galaxies (2013, background): “Observations suggest such an evolution with time in the compactness of galaxies (Trujillo et al. 2007; Cimatti et al. 2008; Saracco, Longhetti & Andreon 2009; van Dokkum et al. 2010; Huertas-Company et al. 2013), and the effective radius is of the order of ∼1.5 − 2 smaller at redshift 1 than at…”
The sizes, masses and specific star formation rates of massive galaxies at 1.3 < z < 1.5: strong evidence in favour of evolution via minor mergers (2012, methodology): “Exactly the same growth factors are obtained if we instead adopt the fitting formulas derived by Buitrago et al. (2008), who incorporated the Trujillo et al. (2007) results in their study of the size evolution of massive galaxies over the redshift interval 0.0 < z < 3.0.”
Theoretical Challenges in Galaxy Formation (2016, background): “…as much smaller systems than those seen today (∼ 1kpc), with the growth in size (while not forming stars) to be understood as a likely sign of subsequent addition of stars in minor mergers at larger radii (e.g. Daddi et al. 2005, Damjanov et al. 2011, Trujillo et al. 2007, van Dokkum et al. 2010).”
CANDELS: THE PROGENITORS OF COMPACT QUIESCENT GALAXIES AT z ∼ 2 (2012, background): “…Purdue University 17 University of Pittsburgh 18 Rutgers University sizes for massive QGs at higher redshifts – these compact QGs (cQGs), also colloquially known as “red nuggets”, are ∼ 5 times smaller than local, equal-mass analogs (Trujillo et al. 2007; Cassata et al. 2011; Szomoru et al. 2011).”
The formation of massive, compact galaxies at z = 2 in the Illustris simulation (2014, background): “Compact galaxies like these are rare in the local universe (Trujillo et al. 2007; Toft et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; Cimatti ?”
The Morphologies of Massive Galaxies at 1<z<3 in the CANDELS-UDS Field: Compact Bulges, and the Rise and Fall of Massive Disks (2012, background): “…Telescope (HST)] surveys have revealed that a significant fraction of massive galaxies at z > 1 are surprisingly compact (e.g. Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2006, 2007; Cimatti et al. 2008; Franx et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2009; Targett et al. 2011), with derived effective radii (Re <…”
Early type galaxies have been the predominant morphological class for massive galaxies since only z~1 (2011, methodology): “The disappearance of these tails is also connected with the dramatic size evolution reported in previous works (see e.g. Trujillo et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; Trujillo, Ferreras & De la Rosa 2011).”
Discriminating Between the Physical Processes that Drive Spheroid Size Evolution (2009, background): “This may not be appropriate, but at z < 1 the two correspond well, and the compactness, size and kinematics of the ‘passive’ objects do appear distinct from star-forming ones (Kriek et al. 2006; Toft et al. 2007; Trujillo et al. 2007; Franx et al. 2008; Genzel et al. 2008).”
THE TWO PHASES OF GALAXY FORMATION (2010, background): “…cosmic time with some detailed information now available at redshifts z > 2 (e.g. Steidel et al. 1999; Pettini et al. 2001; Genzel et al. 2006; Förster Schreiber et al. 2006; Trujillo et al. 2007; Kriek et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Marchesini et al. 2009; Förster Schreiber et al. 2009).”
Mass, metal, and energy feedback in cosmological simulations (2007, result): “Such a scenario is supported by the observations by Trujillo et al. (2006) and Trujillo et al. (2007) showing a trend of galaxies becoming smaller from z = 0 → 2, in general agreement with Mo et al. (1998).”
ON THE DEARTH OF COMPACT, MASSIVE, RED SEQUENCE GALAXIES IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE (2009, result): “…have little or no ongoing star formation and z & 2, these results confirm and consolidate the work of Daddi et al. (2005), Trujillo et al. (2006), Trujillo et al. (2007), Zirm et al. (2007), and Toft et al. (2007), as well as 1 < z < 2 results from, e.g., Longhetti et al. (2007) and Saracco et…”
MINOR MERGERS AND THE SIZE EVOLUTION OF ELLIPTICAL GALAXIES (2009, background): “The galaxies are smaller by a factor of three to five compared to present-day ellipticals at similar masses (Daddi et al. 2005; Longhetti et al. 2007; Toft et al. 2007; Trujillo et al. 2007; van Dokkum et al. 2008; Cimatti et al. 2008; Saracco et al. 2008).”
The first and second data releases of the Kilo-Degree Survey (2015, background): “The relationship between Re or Sérsic index and mass, luminosity and its evolution with redshift has been demonstrated to be a fundamental probe of galaxy evolution and the role of mass accretion in galaxy merging (Trujillo et al. 2007; Hilz et al. 2013; Tortora et al. 2014).”
The Dramatic Size Evolution of Elliptical Galaxies and the Quasar Feedback (2008, background): “INTRODUCTION Several recent observational studies have found that massive, passively evolving, galaxies atz > 1 are much more compact than local galaxies of analogous stellar mass (Ferguson et al. 2004; Trujillo et al. 2004, 2007; Zirm et al. 2007; Cimatti et al. 2008; Damjanov et al. 2008).”
CAN MINOR MERGING ACCOUNT FOR THE SIZE GROWTH OF QUIESCENT GALAXIES? NEW RESULTS FROM THE CANDELS SURVEY (2011, background): “…studied, particularly at high redshift where it is the most observationally accessible projection (e.g., Trujillo et al. 2006; Toft et al. 2007; Trujillo et al. 2007; Zirm et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; Cimatti et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008; van der Wel et al. 2…”
THE EVOLVING RELATIONS BETWEEN SIZE, MASS, SURFACE DENSITY, AND STAR FORMATION IN 3 × 104 GALAXIES SINCE z = 2 (2009, background): “Trujillo et al. (2007) found evidence for similar massdependent evolution of “disk-like” galaxies between 0< z< 1; the sample presented here confirms that this result extends to higher redshifts and applies to the entire quiescent galaxy population.”
The Evolution of Galaxy Structure Over Cosmic Time (2014, background): “…in the past decade has been the discovery that distant galaxies are more compact than systems of the same mass in the local universe (e.g., Daddi et al. 2005; Trujillo et al. 2007; Buitrago et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008, 2010; Weinzirl et al. 2011; Baro et al. 2013; Williams et al. 2014).”
The ATLAS3D project – XX. Mass–size and mass–σ distributions of early-type galaxies: bulge fraction drives kinematics, mass-to-light ratio, molecular gas fraction and stellar initial mass function (2012, methodology): “However, this kind of approach is routinely used to characterize sizes and morphologies of large galaxy samples (e.g. Blanton et al. 2003; Shen et al. 2003) or to study galaxies scaling relations at high redshift (e.g. Trujillo et al. 2007; Cimatti et al. 2008; van Dokkum et al. 2008).”
Strong-lensing optical depths in a ΛCDM universe – II. The influence of the stellar mass in galaxies (2007, background): “Furthermore, recent observations (Trujillo et al. 2007) indicate a stronger evolution of galaxy size with redshift for very massive galaxies, leading to smaller radii for spheroid-like galaxies with Mstellar > 10 11 M at redshifts z & 1 than our estimate (2).”