The Size-Mass Relation of Post-Starburst Galaxies in the Local Universe

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Abstract

We present a study of the size--mass relation for local post-starburst (PSB) galaxies at z≲0.33z\lesssim0.33 selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 8. We find that PSB galaxies with stellar mass (M∗M_*) at 109 M⊙<M∗<1012 M⊙10^9~M_{\odot}<M_*<10^{12}~M_{\odot} have their galaxy size smaller than or comparable with those of quiescent galaxies (QGs). After controlling redshift and stellar mass, the sizes of PSBs are ∼13%\sim 13\% smaller on average than those of QGs, such differences become larger and significant towards the low-M∗M_* end, especially at 109.5 M⊙≲M∗≲1010.5 M⊙10^{9.5}~M_{\odot} \lesssim M_*\lesssim 10^{10.5}~M_{\odot} where PSBs can be on average ∼19%\sim 19\% smaller than QGs. In comparison with predictions of possible PSB evolutionary pathways from cosmological simulations, we suggest that a fast quenching of star formation following a short-lived starburst event (might be induced by major merger) should be the dominated pathway of our PSB sample. Furthermore, by cross-matching with group catalogs, we confirm that local PSBs at M∗≲1010 M⊙M_*\lesssim10^{10}~M_{\odot} are more clustered than more massive ones. PSBs resided in groups are found to be slightly larger in galaxy size and more disk-like compared to field PSBs, which is qualitatively consistent with and thus hints the environment-driven fast quenching pathway for group PSBs. Taken together, our results support multiple evolutionary pathways for local PSB galaxies: while massive PSBs are thought of as products of fast quenching following a major merger-induced starburst, environment-induced fast quenching should play a role in the evolution of less massive PSBs, especially at M∗≲1010 M⊙M_*\lesssim 10^{10}~M_{\odot}.

Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.

Building this map preview

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

Reviews 0

Write a reviewWrite

No reviews yet.

Discussion 0

Add a commentWrite

No comments yet.