Paper detail

Minor Mergers or Progenitor Bias? The Stellar Ages of Small and Large Quenched Early-Type Galaxies

We investigate the origin of the evolution of the population-averaged size of quenched galaxies (QGs) through a spectroscopic analysis of their stellar ages. The two most favoured scenarios for this evolution are either the size growth of individual galaxies through a sequence of dry minor merger events, or the addition of larger, newly quenched galaxies to the pre-existing population (i.e., a progenitor bias effect). We use the 20k zCOSMOS-bright spectroscopic survey to select bona fide quiescent galaxies at 0.2<z<0.8. We stack their spectra in bins of redshift, stellar mass and size to compute stellar population parameters in these bins through fits to the rest-frame optical spectra and through Lick spectral indices. We confirm a change of behaviour in the size-age relation below and above the ~10^11 MSun stellar mass scale: In our 10.5 < log M*/MSun < 11 mass bin, over the entire redshift window, the stellar populations of the largest galaxies are systematically younger than those of the smaller counterparts, pointing at progenitor bias as the main driver of the observed average size evolution at sub-10^11 MSun masses. In contrast, at higher masses, there is no clear trend in age as a function of galaxy size, supporting a substantial role of dry mergers in increasing the sizes of these most massive QGs with cosmic time. Within the errors, the [alpha/Fe] abundance ratios of QGs are (i) above-solar over the entire redshift range of our analysis, hinting at universally short timescales for the buildup of the stellar populations of QGs, and (ii) similar at all masses and sizes, suggesting similar (short) timescales for the whole QG population and strengthening the role of mergers in the buildup of the most massive QGs in the Universe.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 authors1 topic

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.