Paper detail

Dissecting the size evolution of elliptical galaxies since z~1: puffing up vs minor merging scenarios

We have explored the buildup of the local mass-size relation of elliptical galaxies using two visually classified samples. At low redshift we compiled a subsample of 2,656 elliptical galaxies from SDSS, whereas at higher redshift (up to z~1) we extracted a sample of 228 object from the HST/ACS images of the GOODS. All the galaxies in our study have spectroscopic data, allowing us to determine the age and mass of the stellar component. Using the fossil record information contained in the stellar populations of our local sample, we do not find any evidence for an age segregation at a given stellar mass depending on the size of the galaxies. At a fixed dynamical mass there is only a <9% size difference in the two extreme age quartiles of our sample. Consequently, the local evidence does not support a scenario whereby the present-day mass-size relation has been progressively established via a bottom-up sequence, where older galaxies occupy the lower part this relation, remaining in place since their formation. We find a trend in size that is insensitive to the age of the stellar populations, at least since z~1. This result supports the idea that the stellar mass-size relation is formed at z~1, with all galaxies populating a region which roughly corresponds to 1/2 of the present size distribution. The fact that the evolution in size is independent of stellar age, together with the absence of an increase in the scatter of the relationship with redshift does not support the puffing up mechanism. The observational evidence, however, can not reject at this stage the minor merging hypothesis. We have made an estimation of the number of minor merger events necessary to bring the high-z galaxies into the local relation compatible with the observed size evolution. Since z=0.8, if the merger mass ratio is 1:3 we estimate ~3+-1 minor mergers and if the ratio is 1:10 we obtain ~8+-2 events.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.