STRONG NEBULAR LINE RATIOS IN THE SPECTRA of z ∼ 2–3 STAR FORMING GALAXIES: FIRST RESULTS FROM KBSS-MOSFIRE

By C. Steidel, G. Rudie, A. Strom, M. Pettini, Naveen A. Reddy, A. Shapley, R. Trainor, D. Erb, M. Turner, N. Konidaris and 4 more. 2014

395 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We present initial results of a deep near-IR spectroscopic survey covering the 15 fields of the Keck Baryonic Structure Survey using the recently commissioned MOSFIRE spectrometer on the Keck 1 telescope. We focus on a sample of 251 galaxies with redshifts 2.0 < z < 2.6, star formation rates (SFRs) 2 ≲ SFR ≲ 200 M☉ yr−1, and stellar masses 8.6 < log (M*/M☉) < 11.4, with high-quality spectra in both H- and K-band atmospheric windows. We show unambiguously that the locus of z ∼ 2.3 galaxies in the “BPT” nebular diagnostic diagram exhibits an almost entirely disjointed, yet similarly tight, relationship between the line ratios [N ii] λ6585/Hα and [O iii]/Hβ as compared to local galaxies. Using photoionization models, we argue that the offset of the z ∼ 2.3 BPT locus relative to that at z ∼ 0 is caused by a combination of harder stellar ionizing radiation field, higher ionization parameter, and higher N/O at a given O/H compared to most local galaxies, and that the position of a galaxy along the z ∼ 2.3 star-forming BPT locus is surprisingly insensitive to gas-phase oxygen abundance. The observed nebular emission line ratios are most easily reproduced by models in which the net stellar ionizing radiation field resembles a blackbody with effective temperature Teff = 50, 000–60, 000 K, the gas-phase oxygen abundances lie in the range 0.2 < Z/Z☉ < 1.0, and the ratio of gas-phase N/O is close to the solar value. We critically assess the applicability at high redshift of commonly used strong line indices for estimating gas-phase metallicity, and consider the implications of the small intrinsic scatter of the empirical relationship between excitation-sensitive line indices and M* (i.e., the “mass–metallicity” relation) at z ≃ 2.3.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b9bdf44cc51e806f290de47fce03403f93cca9fc

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. R. Dav'e
  4. P. V. van Dokkum
  5. R. Somerville
  6. C. Conroy
  7. A. Dekel
  8. Volker Springel

In Instrumentation

  1. P. Hopkins
  2. L. Hernquist
  3. P. V. van Dokkum
  4. C. Conroy
  5. R. Dav'e
  6. M. Franx
  7. A. Dekel
  8. R. Somerville

Citations in the corpus