The DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey: Evolution of Close Galaxy Pairs and Major-Merger Rates up to z ~ 1.2

By Lihwai Lin, D. Koo, C. Willmer, David R. Patton, Christopher J. Conselice, R. Yan, A. Coil, M. C. Cooper, M. Davis, S. Faber and 3 more. 2004

204 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We derive the close, kinematic pair fraction and merger rate up to redshift z ~ 1.2 from the initial data of the DEEP2 Redshift Survey. Assuming a mild luminosity evolution, the number of companions per luminous galaxy is found to evolve as (1 + z)m, with m = 0.51 ± 0.28; assuming no evolution, m = 1.60 ± 0.29. Our results imply that only 9% of present-day L* galaxies have undergone major mergers since z ~ 1.2 and that the average major merger rate is about 4 × 10-4 h3 Mpc-3 Gyr-1 for z ~ 0.5-1.2. Most previous studies have yielded higher values.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f041bdd2ced1bc5019c8d67f778b34f33441a233

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

Strong size evolution of the most massive galaxies since z~2 (2007, background): “Since z ∼ 2 very few gas rich mergers occur in massive galaxies (e.g., Conselice et al. 2003; Conselice 2006), but a few dry mergersare possible based on pair counts (e.g., Lin et al. 2004).”
A Cosmological Framework for the Co-Evolution of Quasars, Supermassive Black Holes, and Elliptical Galaxies. I. Galaxy Mergers and Quasar Activity (2007, background): “In fact, for z ¼ 0:3Y1:5, the fraction increases by only a factor of 3Y4, consistent withmost observations finding a relatively flat merger fraction in this range (e.g., Lin et al. 2004; Lotz et al. 2008) and recent cosmological simulations (Maller et al. 2006).”
DUSTY INFRARED GALAXIES: Sources of the Cosmic Infrared Background (2005, background): “Observations, however, give m values between 0 and 4 (Le Fèvre et al. 2000; Conselice et al. 2003; Bundy et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2004).”
Dry Mergers in GEMS: The Dynamical Evolution of Massive Early-Type Galaxies (2005, unknown): “The results for Lin et al. (2004) are shown as triangles (separations between 10 and 30 kpc; MBP 20).”
Early and Rapid Merging as a Formation Mechanism of Massive Galaxies: Empirical Constraints (2005, methodology): “This has been effectively applied up to redshifts z ∼ 1 (e.g., Carlberg et al. 1994; Le Févre et al. 2000; Patton et al. 2002; Bundy et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2004).”
The Rest-Frame Far-Ultraviolet Morphologies of Star-Forming Galaxies at z ~ 1.5 and 4 (2006, unknown): “…irregular, elongated systems at z 2 have failed to show the significant rotation that is expected at early merger stages (Erb et al. 2004), and recent studies of kinematic close pairs at z 1 indicate a lower merger rate than that derived using morphological asymmetry (Lin et al. 2004).”
The effect of gas fraction on the morphology and time-scales of disc galaxy mergers (2009, background): “On the other hand, spectroscopically-confirmed pairs and G − M20 techniques have found weak evolution in the fraction of galaxy merger candidates (Lin et al. 2004, Bundy et al. 2004, Lotz et al. 2008a, de Ravel et al. 2009).”
Galaxy merger morphologies and time-scales from simulations of equal-mass gas-rich disc mergers (2008, background): “…selecting galaxies close in projected angular separation and line-of-sight radial velocity (e.g. Patton et al. 2000; Barton, Geller, & Kenyon 2000; Lin et al. 2004; de Propris et al. 2005; Lin et al. 2008) or by measuring the deprojected correlation function on small scales (Bell et al. 2006a;…”
Stellar Population Diagnostics of Elliptical Galaxy Formation (2006, methodology): “The merger rate since z ∼ 1.2 has been estimated by Lin et al. (2004) as part of the DEEP2 survey, concluding that only ∼ 9% of presentday M∗ galaxies have undergone a major merger during the corresponding time interval.”
The VIMOS VLT Deep Survey - Evolution of the major merger rate since z ~ 1 from spectroscopically confirmed galaxy pairs (2008, unknown): “…0.6 0.8 1 M er g in g tim esc al e (G yr ) 20 kpc/h 30 kpc/h 50 kpc/h 100 kpc/h The time-scales are found to be higher than the standard assumption that half of the pairs withrmaxp = 20h −1 kpc undergo a merger in half a Giga-year (Patton et al., 2000; Patton et al., 2002; Lin et al., 2004).”
HISTORY OF GALAXY INTERACTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON STAR FORMATION OVER THE LAST 7 Gyr FROM GEMS (2009, background): “Lin et al. (2004) find that ∼ 9% of the massive early type galaxies experienced a major merger since z ∼ 1.2, while Bell et al. (2006) report that ∼ 50% of all galaxies with present-day stellar masses above 5 × 1010 M⊙ have undergone a major merger since z ∼ 0.8.”
The stochastic gravitational-wave background from massive black hole binary systems: implications for observations with Pulsar Timing Arrays (2008, methodology): “…this calculation to the two samples considered by Bell et al. 2006 and relying on their estimate of TM ∼ 4 × 108 yr (see also Barnes & Hernquist 1992, Patton et al. 2002, Lin et al. 2004, Naab Khockfar & Burket 2006), we find ṄM ≈ 5 × 10−3 yr−1 for case (i), and ṄM ∼ 2 × 10−3 yr−1 for case (ii).”
The Relation between Quasar and Merging Galaxy Luminosity Functions and the Merger-driven Star Formation History of the Universe (2006, background): “…estimates of merger fractions and their evolution with redshift (Le Fèvre et al. 2000; Patton et al. 2002; Conselice et al. 2003, 2005; Lin et al. 2004; Bundy et al. 2004; Bell et al. 2005; Wolf et al. 2005), namely, that at zP 1, star formation triggered inmergers contributes only a…”
Galaxy growth in the concordance ΛCDM cosmology (2007, background): “(Bell et al. 2006; Carlberg et al. 2000; Patton et al. 2002; Conselice et al. 2003; Bundy et al. 2004; Lin et al. 2004).”
The fundamental properties of galaxies and a new galaxy classification system (2006, background): “Mergers are likely a critically important galaxy formation/evolution process especially if the first galaxies were all of low mass. Mergers are also observationally more common at earlier times (e.g., Conselice et al. 2003a, Bundy et al. 2004, Lin et al. 2004, Pope et al. 2005).”
The VIMOS VLT deep survey: the assembly history of the stellar mass in galaxies: from the young to the old universe (2007, unknown): “…a corresponding increase by a factor of 2 of their stellar mass since z ∼ 1, possibly due to so-called “dry mergers” (even if the observational results on major merging and drymerging are still contradictory, see Bell et al. 2005; van Dokkum 2005; Lin et al. 2004, and Renzini 2007, for a summary).”
The Recent and Continuing Assembly of Field Elliptical Galaxies by Red Mergers (2005, background): “…as a free parameter; observational constraints on the evolution of the merger rate may not be quite consistent (see, e.g., Patton et al. 2002; Conselice et al. 2003; Lin et al. 2004), and no studies have specifically considered the evolution of the pair fraction among galaxies on the red sequence.”
Galaxy Luminosity Functions to z~1 from DEEP2 and COMBO-17: Implications for Red Galaxy Formation (2005, background): “Early merger rates from DEEP2 are based on optical pair counts, not morphologies, and are rather low: only 9% of L∗ galaxies are estimated to have suffered a major merger since z = 1.2 (Lin et al. 2004); Bundy et al. (2004) obtain similar rates based on K-band pair counts.”