Paper detail

Significant evolution of the stellar mass-metallicity relation since z~0.65

We present the stellar mass-metallicity relation for 34 0.4<z<1 galaxies selected from CFRS and Marano fields, and compare it to those derived from three local samples of galaxies (NFGS, KISS and SDSS). Our metal abundance estimates account for extinction effects, as estimated from IR/optical ratios and Balmer line ratios. All three comparisons show that the intermediate mass galaxies at z~0.65 are more metal-deficient by 0.3 dex at a given M_K or stellar mass relative to z=0. We find no evidence that this discrepancy could be related to different methods used to derive mass and metallicity. Assuming a closed box model predicts a gas fraction converted into stars of 20-25% since z~0.65, if the gas fraction is 10-20% in present-day galaxies with intermediate masses. This result is in excellent agreement with previous findings that most of the decline of the cosmic star formation density is related to the population of intermediate mass galaxies, which is composed of 75% spirals today. We find no evidence for a change of the slope of the M_{\star}-Z relation from z~0.65 to z=0 within the intermediate mass range (10.5<log(M_{\star}) < 11.5).

preprint2005arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.