Paper detail

Stellar Ages and Metallicities of Central and Satellite Galaxies: Implications for Galaxy Formation and Evolution

Using a large SDSS galaxy group catalogue, we study how the stellar ages and metallicities of central and satellite galaxies depend on stellar mass and halo mass. We find that satellites are older and metal-richer than centrals of the same stellar mass. In addition, the slopes of the age-stellar mass and metallicity-stellar mass relations are found to become shallower in denser environments. This is due to the fact that the average age and metallicity of low mass satellite galaxies increase with the mass of the halo in which they reside. A comparison with the semi-analytical model of Wang et al. (2008) shows that it succesfully reproduces the fact that satellites are older than centrals of the same stellar mass and that the age difference increases with the halo mass of the satellite. This is a consequence of strangulation, which leaves the stellar populations of satellites to evolve passively, while the prolonged star formation activity of centrals keeps their average ages younger. The resulting age offset is larger in more massive environments because their satellites were accreted earlier. The model fails, however, in reproducing the halo mass dependence of the metallicities of low mass satellites, yields metallicity-stellar mass and age-stellar mass relations that are too shallow, and predicts that satellite galaxies have the same metallicities as centrals of the same stellar mass, in disagreement with the data. We argue that these discrepancies are likely to indicate the need to (i) modify the recipes of both supernova feedback and AGN feedback, (ii) use a more realistic description of strangulation, and (iii) include a proper treatment of the tidal stripping, heating and destruction of satellite galaxies. [Abridged]

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access7 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.