LaTeX2Web, a web authoring and publishing system
LaTeX2Web, a web authoring and publishing system
If you see this, something is wrong
To get acquainted with the document, the best thing to do is to select the "Collapse all sections" item from the "View" menu. This will leave visible only the titles of the top-level sections.
Clicking on a section title toggles the visibility of the section content. If you have collapsed all of the sections, this will let you discover the document progressively, from the top-level sections to the lower-level ones.
Generally speaking, anything that is blue is clickable.
Clicking on a reference link (like an equation number, for instance) will display the reference as close as possible, without breaking the layout. Clicking on the displayed content or on the reference link hides the content. This is recursive: if the content includes a reference, clicking on it will have the same effect. These "links" are not necessarily numbers, as it is possible in LaTeX2Web to use full text for a reference.
Clicking on a bibliographical reference (i.e., a number within brackets) will display the reference.
Speech bubbles indicate a footnote. Click on the bubble to reveal the footnote (there is no page in a web document, so footnotes are placed inside the text flow). Acronyms work the same way as footnotes, except that you have the acronym instead of the speech bubble.
By default, discussions are open in a document. Click on the discussion button below to reveal the discussion thread. However, you must be registered to participate in the discussion.
If a thread has been initialized, you can reply to it. Any modification to any comment, or a reply to it, in the discussion is signified by email to the owner of the document and to the author of the comment.
The blue button below that says "table of contents" is your tool to navigate in a publication.
The left arrow brings you to the previous document in the publication, and the right one brings you to the next. Both cycle over the publication list.
The middle button that says "table of contents" reveals the publication table of contents. This table is hierarchical structured. It has sections, and sections can be collapsed or expanded. If you are a registered user, you can save the layout of the table of contents.
First published on Thursday, Dec 19, 2024 and last modified on Thursday, Apr 10, 2025
Department of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA and Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK Email
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Department of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA and Cosmic Dawn Center (DAWN), Copenhagen, Denmark
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK
Department of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
galaxies: evolution, galaxies: high-redshift, galaxies: photometry
We present the results of a study investigating the galaxy stellar-mass function (GSMF), size-mass relations and morphological properties of star-forming and quiescent galaxies over the redshift range \( 0.25 < z < 2.25\) , using the JWST PRIMER survey. The depth of the PRIMER near-IR imaging allows us to confirm the double Schechter function shape of the quiescent GSMF out to \( z \simeq 2.0\) , via a clear detection of the upturn at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \leq 10\) thought to be induced by environmental quenching. In addition to the GSMF, we confirm that quiescent galaxies can be split into separate populations at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \simeq 10\) , based on their size-mass relations and morphologies. We find that low-mass quiescent galaxies have more disk-like morphologies (based on Sérsic index, Gini coefficient and \( M_{20}\) metrics) and follow a shallower size-mass relation than their high-mass counterparts. Indeed, the slope of the size-mass relation followed by low-mass quiescent galaxies is indistinguishable from that followed by star-forming galaxies, albeit with a lower normalization. Moreover, within the errors, the evolution in the median size of low-mass quiescent galaxies is indistinguishable from that followed by star-forming galaxies ( \( R_\mathrm{{e}} \propto (1+z)^{-0.25\pm 0.03})\) , and significantly less rapid than that displayed by high-mass quiescent galaxies ( \( R_\mathrm{{e}} \propto (1+z)^{-1.14\pm 0.03})\) . Overall, our results are consistent with low and high-mass quiescent galaxies following different quenching pathways. The evolution of low-mass quiescent galaxies is qualitatively consistent with the expectations of external/environmental quenching (e.g. ram-pressure stripping). In contrast, the evolution of high-mass quiescent galaxies is consistent with internal/mass quenching (e.g. AGN feedback) followed by size growth driven by minor mergers.
Understanding the different evolutionary pathways linking high-redshift galaxies with the bi-modal population of star-forming and quiescent galaxies observed locally [ 23, 24] remains a key goal in extragalactic astronomy. Addressing this question relies on being able to disentangle the influences of internal and external mechanisms responsible for the regulation of star-formation.
Simulations have shown that feedback plays a crucial role in quenching star formation and producing the observed bi-modality of the local galaxy population [e.g. 25, and references therein]. In the highest-mass halos (\( \geq 10^{12}\ \mathrm{M_{\odot}}\) ) feedback from active galactic nuclei (AGN) is thought to play an important role in gas heating and the consequential quenching of star formation. In contrast, at early times, feedback in lower-mass halos is provided by supernovae, stellar winds and reionization [see 26, 27]. At later times, environmental quenching mechanisms, such as ram-pressure stripping [28], and gas-rich mergers [see e.g. 29, 30], are thought to play an increasingly important role in quenching star formation in low-mass halos [31].
From an observational perspective, the last two decades have seen considerable effort invested in improving our understanding of quiescent galaxies and quenching via studies of the galaxy stellar-mass function (GSMF), the evolution of galaxy size and morphology with redshift and correlations between galaxy size, age and metallicity with stellar mass [e.g. 32, 33, 11, 10, 34, 35].
Based on the deepest available ground-based near-IR data, the wide-area study of [1] showed that the quiescent GSMF at \( z \leq 1.5\) follows a double Schechter function shape, with a characteristic upturn in the number density of \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \leq 10\) quiescent galaxies. Moreover, [2] found evidence for the same upturn at \( z\simeq2-2.5\) in their combined CANDELS+Hubble Frontier Fields study. This upturn appears consistent with the emergence of a distinct population of environmentally-quenched galaxies [e.g. 31, 36], but whether or not this population of low-mass quenched galaxies emerged at still higher redshifts, remains an open question.
Previous studies of the GSMF have indicated that the rapidly evolving quiescent fraction means that while quiescent galaxies dominate the stellar-mass budget by \( z \lesssim 0.5\) , they account for only \( \simeq 10\%\) of the mass budget at \( z\simeq 3\) . However, this result has been brought into question by the dramatically improved sensitivity and wavelength coverage provided by JWST. Recent JWST-based studies have spectroscopically confirmed high-mass quenched galaxies at \( z\simeq5\) [e.g. 37, 38] and have uncovered significantly higher number densities of high-mass quiescent galaxies at \( z=3-5\) than suggested by pre- JWST studies [e.g. 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. Interestingly, at least some of these spectroscopically-confirmed, high-mass quiescent galaxies at \( z\geq 3\) have stellar populations that can apparently only be explained by invoking much higher star-formation efficiencies than observed locally [e.g. 37, 44].
In addition to the GSMF, evidence for different quenching mechanisms should also be encoded in the evolution of galaxy size with redshift. In the local Universe, it is well established that quiescent galaxies are smaller than their star-forming counterparts (at fixed stellar mass) and follow steeper size-mass relations [45]. More recently, deep spectroscopic surveys have enabled size-mass relations to be determined for statistically representative samples of massive galaxies [12, 46, 47], building on earlier wide-field photometric studies at \( z < 2\) [e.g. 48, 49]. Within this context, in [10], we selected robust samples of quiescent galaxies from the VANDELS [50] and LEGA-C [51] spectroscopic surveys, finding that from \( z = 1.3\) to \( z = 0.6\) , dry minor mergers are the dominant mechanism of size and stellar-mass growth at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) > 10.3\) . The results of this spectroscopic study aligned extremely well with the results of a wide range of previous photometric studies of massive quiescent galaxies at \( z < 2\) [e.g. 52, 53, 48, 49, 54, 55, 12].
However, investigations of the quiescent galaxy size-mass relation over a larger dynamical range of stellar mass paint a more complex picture; less-massive quiescent galaxies have sizes akin to star-forming galaxies at fixed stellar masses. As a result, many studies have suggested that the size-mass relation of quiescent galaxies is better described by a smoothly-broken or double power-law [e.g. 56, 13, 14, 57], with a pivot mass at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \simeq 10\) [e.g. 12]. These observations highlight an important result; the flattening of the size-mass relation at lower stellar masses is an indication that environmental quenching mechanisms are becoming important, with consequences for the morphologies of low-mass quiescent galaxies [e.g. 58, 59].
A galaxy’s morphology, typically measured via the Sérsic index (\( n\) ), should also provide important information regarding its evolutionary history. Star-forming galaxies are known to have generally disk-like morphologies (\( n\simeq 1\) ) that show little evolution with redshift [60]. In contrast, the Sérsic indices of high-mass quiescent galaxies have been shown to evolve strongly with redshift [e.g. 48]. Moreover, massive post-starburst galaxies are known to be smaller than their quiescent counterparts, but exhibit similar Sérsic indices, consistent with the expectations of rapid quenching [61].
While much less is understood about the low-mass quiescent population, particularly at high redshift, JWST has recently provided deep rest-frame optical and near-infrared imaging of these galaxies. Similar to trends observed at \( z \sim 1\) , the galaxy size-mass relation appears to flatten towards lower masses at \( z > 1 \) [e.g. 16, 18] and small numbers of low-mass quiescent galaxies have been discovered in over-dense regions at \( z\simeq 2\) [e.g. 19]. Together, these results suggest that environmental effects driving quenching at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) <10\) are not significantly changing the size or morphology of the quenching galaxies.
From the above discussion, it is clear that a powerful strategy for exploring the impact of different quenching mechanisms is to study both the GSMF and the evolution of galaxy size and morphology with redshift and stellar mass, for both star-forming and quiescent galaxies. Consequently, in this paper we investigate the GSMF for star-forming and quiescent galaxies, together with relationships between size, stellar mass and morphology, out to \( z = 2.25\) , using publicly available data from the JWST PRIMER Survey [62]. The key motivation is to search for the signatures of environmental quenching within low-mass quiescent galaxies and to explore whether low and high-mass quiescent galaxies can be treated as distinct populations following different evolutionary pathways.
The structure of the paper is as follows. We first give details of the PRIMER dataset in Section 2, and then discuss our fitting methods and sample selection in Section 3. We then present our results on the GSMF and the relationships between size, stellar mass and morphology in Section 4, and discuss these findings in Section 5. Finally, we summarise our main conclusions in Section 6.
Throughout this paper, we quote all magnitudes in the AB system and assume cosmological parameters of \( H_{0}\) = \( \mathrm{70 \ {km} \ {s^{-1}} \ {Mpc^{-1}}}\) , \( \mathrm{\Omega_{m}} = 0.3\) and \( \mathrm{\Omega_{\Lambda}} = 0.7\) . We use a [3] initial mass function and the [4] Solar abundance of \( \mathrm{Z}_{\odot}=0.0142\) .
| Component | Parameter | Symbol / Unit | Range | Prior | Hyper- parameters |
| Global | Redshift | \( z\mathrm{_{phot}}\) | \( z\mathrm{_{phot}}\) \( (\pm 0.015)\) | Gaussian | \( \mu = z\mathrm{_{phot}}\) \( \sigma = 0.005\) |
| SFH | Stellar mass formed Metallicity Falling slope Rising slope Peak time | \( M_{\star}/\mathrm{M_{\odot}}\) \( Z_{\star}/\mathrm{Z_{\odot}}\) \( \alpha\) \( \beta\) \( \tau \) / Gyr | (1, 10\( ^{13}\) ) (0.2, 2.5) (0.1, 10\( ^3\) ) (0.1, 10\( ^3\) ) (0.1, \( t\mathrm{_{obs}}\) ) | log log log log uniform | |
| Dust | 5500 Å attenuation Deviation from Calzetti 2175 Å bump strength | \( A_{V}/\) mag \( \delta\) B | (0, 4) (\( -0.3, 0.3\) ) (0, 5) | uniform Gaussian uniform | \( \mu=0.0\) \( \sigma = 0.1\) |
In this section, we give a brief overview of the PRIMER survey data we make use of throughout this paper.
The Public Release IMaging for Extra-galactic Research (PRIMER) is a Cycle 1 Treasury Programme, providing deep JWST NIRCam+MIRI imaging of the CANDELS COSMOS and UDS legacy fields. The NIRCam imaging is available in eight filters (F090W, F115W, F150W, F200W, F277W, F356W, F410M and F444W) covering the wavelength range \( 0.9 - 5\ \mu\) m , with integration times varying between a minimum of 14 mins and a maximum of 84 mins. The PRIMER UDS and COSMOS fields also benefit from deep optical HST/ACS imaging from the CANDELS survey [ 63, 64] in the F435W, F606W and F814W filters. In this study, we makes use of the PRIMER area with full ACS+NIRCam coverage, which amounts to \( \simeq 300\) sq. arcmin.
For the PRIMER datasets, multi-wavelength catalogues are constructed using SourceExtractor [65] in dual-image mode. To facilitate the selection of quiescent galaxies up to \( z \sim 3\) , F356W is used as the primary detection image. Isophotal photometry is performed on the PSF-homogenised images (PSF matched to F444W) and each of the catalogues requires a \( 5\sigma-\) detection in the detection image, and a \( 3\sigma-\) detection in at least one other band to minimise spurious detections.
These catalogues were processed by various different photometric redshift codes and template sets, providing final median redshifts with a typical accuracy of \( \sigma_\mathrm{ dz} \simeq 0.02\) and catastrophic outlier rates of only \( \simeq3\%\) [ 66]. We use these photometric redshifts during our Bagpipes fitting, discussed in the next section.
We use Bagpipes [ 67] to fit the available photometric data for all galaxies in the initial PRIMER catalogues. A double-power-law star-formation history model is employed, incorporating the updated 2016 versions of the BC03 stellar population synthesis models [ 68, 69], with stellar metallicity allowed to vary over the range \( 0.2 - 2.5\ \mathrm{Z}_{\odot}\) , using a logarithmic prior.
We use the [5] dust attenuation law, which parameterizes the dust curve through a power-law deviation, \( \delta\) , from the [6] attenuation law, as used in [34]. Nebular continuum and emission lines are modelled using the Cloudy photo-ionization code [ 70], using a method based on that of [7]. We assume a fixed ionization parameter of \( \mathrm{log_{10}}(U)= -3\) . Full details of the free parameters and priors used in the fitting are provided in Table 1 .
We first restrict our sample to those objects with photometry in \( \geq 10\) bands, before imposing a \( \chi^2 < 50\) cut on the SED fits to the photometry in order to remove artefacts, objects with corrupted photometry or spurious fits (e.g. fits which have hit the edges of the priors). We then use the rest-frame colours from Bagpipes to separate the star-forming and quiescent galaxies via the \( UVJ\) diagram [71], requiring that quiescent galaxies have:
Additionally, to determine the effective stellar-mass limits of our PRIMER sample, we follow the procedure proposed in [8]. For each galaxy, we calculate the limiting stellar mass that a galaxy would have if its apparent magnitude were equal to the limiting \( 5\sigma\) magnitude of the survey. Thus, the limiting stellar mass, \( \mathrm{log}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{lim}})\) , of a single galaxy is given by:
(1)
where \( \mathrm{log}(\mathcal{M})= \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \) and \( m_\mathrm{F356W} - m_{\mathrm{lim}}\) is the difference between the apparent F356W magnitude of the galaxy and the \( 5\sigma\) magnitude limit. We thus define the 90% mass-completeness limit for the full sample at each redshift as the minimum stellar mass below which 90% of the individual limiting stellar masses lie.
The PRIMER COSMOS and UDS fields have variable depths across their shallow, medium and deep regions [72]. After correcting to total, the median \( 5\sigma\) depth across the shallowest PRIMER regions is \( \simeq\) 28.5 mag in the F356W selection filter. However, to ensure that objects in our sample have high enough signal-to-noise to provide robust size measurements, we adopt a more conservative limiting magnitude of \( m_\mathrm{F356W} = 28\) for our final sample. The sample sizes and 90% mass-completeness limits corresponding to this magnitude cut are presented in Table 2.
| \( 0.25 < z < 0.75\) | \( 0.75 < z < 1.25\) | \( 1.25 < z < 1.75\) | \( 1.75 < z < 2.25\) | |||||
| Galaxy type | \( N\) | \( \mathrm{log}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{lim}})\) | \( N\) | \( \mathrm{log}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{lim}})\) | \( N\) | \( \mathrm{log}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{lim}})\) | \( N\) | \( \mathrm{log}(\mathcal{M}_{\mathrm{lim}})\) |
| Star forming | 5338 | 7.96 | 7855 | 8.11 | 7900 | 8.29 | 6358 | 8.46 |
| Quiescent | 1020 | 8.11 | 554 | 8.29 | 332 | 8.52 | 201 | 8.72 |
We use Galfit [73] to measure the F356W-based sizes of the galaxies in our sample, adopting a similar procedure to [10]. As suggested by [9], it is necessary to sample rest-frame near-infrared wavelengths in order to study the mass-weighted structural evolution of galaxies. The F356W imaging allows us to access the rest-frame near-infrared (\( \lambda_\mathrm{{rest}} > 1.09 \ \mu\mathrm{m}\) ) over the full redshift range of our sample and is \( \geq 0.5\) magnitudes deeper than the F410M and F444W imaging.
We set up an automated fitting routine (in Python) that uses the output from SourceExtractor [65] as inputs for Galfit, in addition to generating the necessary image, segmentation and weight-map cutouts for each galaxy. The segmentation map is used to mask neighbouring galaxies from the fits, unless the neighbours are within \( \pm 2.5\) magnitudes and separated by \( \leq 3^{\prime\prime}\) from the target galaxy, in which case the target galaxy and neighbours are fit simultaneously. We restrict the image-cutout size to 200 x 200 pixels (\( 6^{\prime\prime}\times 6^{\prime\prime}\) on the sky; \( 0.03^{\prime\prime}\) /pix) and use an empirical point-spread function (PSF) created from a stack of isolated and unsaturated stars.
To avoid getting stuck in false local minima, we run Galfit over a grid of Sérsic index and observed effective radius between \( 0.1 - 10\) and \( 0.025'' - 3''\) , to incorporate the full range of realistic values. To ensure convergence, we implement a system during fitting to repeatedly ‘kick' Galfit out of local minima, before adopting the morphological parameters from the fit with the global minimum value of \( \chi^2\) .
We also obtain non-parametric morphological measurements for our mass-complete samples using StatMorph [74], which calculates parameters such CAS [concentration, asymmetry and smoothness/clumpiness, see 75, for a review], the Gini coefficient \( G\) , and the second-order moment of the brightest 20% of a galaxy’s pixels, \( M_{20}\) [see 17].
We use the 90% mass-complete sample presented in Table 2 to calculate the stellar-mass functions presented in Fig. 2. However, to ensure a robust analysis of the sizes and morphologies of the PRIMER galaxies, we perform a final visual inspection, removing any galaxies for which the size fitting failed due to contamination by nearby stars/bright objects, or because the galaxy was too close to the image edge. This process removed \( \simeq10\) % of the mass-complete sample, leaving a final, robust sample of \( \simeq 1400\) quiescent and \( \simeq 25000\) star-forming galaxies over the redshift range \( 0.25 < z < 2.25\) . The UVJ diagrams for this sample as a function of redshift are presented in Fig. 1.
In this section, we present the results obtained from our SED fitting and size measurements for our final PRIMER samples of star-forming and quiescent galaxies over the redshift range \( 0.25 < z< 2.25\) .
| star-forming | |||||
| Redshift | \( \mathcal{M}_{\star}\) | \( \phi_{\star_{1}}\) | \( \alpha_{1}\) | \( \phi_{\star_{2}}\) | \( \alpha_{2}\) |
| \( 0.25 < z < 0.75\) | \( 10.93 \pm 0.06\) | \( -2.92 \pm 0.12\) | \( -1.39 \pm 0.05\) | - | - |
| \( 0.75 < z < 1.25\) | \( 10.95 \pm 0.04\) | \( -3.05 \pm 0.09\) | \( -1.40 \pm 0.04\) | - | - |
| \( 1.25 < z < 1.75\) | \( 10.94 \pm 0.05\) | \( -3.11 \pm 0.11\) | \( -1.40 \pm 0.05\) | - | - |
| \( 1.75 < z < 2.25\) | \( 10.97 \pm 0.03\) | \( -3.17 \pm 0.09\) | \( -1.39 \pm 0.06\) | - | - |
| quiescent | |||||
| Redshift | \( \mathcal{M}_{\star}\) | \( \phi_{\star_{1}}\) | \( \alpha_{1}\) | \( \phi_{\star_{2}}\) | \( \alpha_{2}\) |
| \( 0.25 < z < 0.75\) | \( 10.70 \pm 0.16\) | \( -2.70 \pm 0.10\) | \( 0.30 \pm 0.43\) | \( -3.46 \pm 0.34\) | \( -1.30 \pm 0.12\) |
| \( 0.75 < z < 1.25\) | \( 10.73 \pm 0.14\) | \( -3.00 \pm 0.06\) | \( 0.19 \pm 0.45\) | \( -4.55\pm 0.45\) | \( -1.53 \pm 0.20\) |
| \( 1.25 < z < 1.75\) | \( 10.67 \pm 0.13\) | \( -3.17 \pm 0.06\) | \( 0.22 \pm 0.46 \) | \( -5.07 \pm 1.09\) | \( -1.54 \pm 0.56\) |
| \( 1.75 < z < 2.25\) | \( 10.71 \pm 0.14\) | \( -3.37 \pm 0.09\) | \( 0.02 \pm 0.38\) | \( -7.25 \pm 4.20\) | \( -2.60 \pm 2.25\) |
In this analysis, we use the depth and wavelength coverage of the PRIMER imaging to improve on previous studies of the GSMF based on ground-based and HST imaging. We derive robust stellar masses from Bagpipes and calculate number densities for our PRIMER samples of star-forming and quiescent galaxies between \( z = 0.25\) and \( z = 2.25\) , in bins of width \( \Delta z=0.5\) .
Following [1], we fit the observed star-forming and quiescent GSMFs with single and double-Schechter functions, respectively. The single-Schechter function takes the form:
(2)
and the double-Schechter function:
(3)
where in both functions, the characteristic stellar mass is given by \( M_{\star}\) .
We plot our new determinations of the quiescent and star-forming GSMFs, along with the best-fitting Schechter functions, in Fig. 2. The corresponding best-fitting Schechter function parameters are reported in Table 3. For comparison, we also plot the best-fitting GSMFs derived in [1], based on 3 sq. degrees of the deepest available ground-based near-IR imaging.
It can be seen from Fig. 2 that, overall, our new GSMF results are in good agreement with those of [1]. However, the extra depth provided by the PRIMER imaging allows us to confirm that the quiescent GSMF follows a double Schechter function shape over the full redshift range of our sample. The PRIMER NIRCam imaging employed in this study is \( \simeq 3\) magnitudes deeper than the deepest available ground-based near-IR imaging. Consequently, while [1] found no strong evidence for a low-mass upturn in the quiescent GSMF at \( z\geq 1.5\) , we have firmly established that the upturn is present out to \( z\simeq 2.25\) , in excellent agreement with the results presented in [2].
The low-mass upturn in the quiescent galaxy stellar-mass function is widely interpreted as due to the emergence of a separate population of low-mass, environmentally-quenched galaxies [31]. Within this context, our GSMF results immediately suggest that the quiescent galaxy population can be split into two separate populations at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \simeq 10\) and that the low-mass quiescent galaxy population was becoming established as early as \( z\simeq 2\) .
Adopting the same redshift bins employed for the GSMF, we fit size-mass relations for our mass-complete samples of star-forming and quiescent galaxies. Following [10], we fit a single power-law relation as a function of galaxy mass, such that:
(4)
where \( R_{\mathrm{e}}\) is the effective radius of the galaxy, \( \alpha\) is the slope and \( \mathrm{log}_{10}(A)\) is the normalisation of the relationship. We fit the single power-law relation to the full star-forming galaxy sample and separately to low-mass and high-mass sub-samples of the quiescent galaxies split at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) =10\) , as motivated by the observed inflection point in the quiescent GSMF. In addition, we fit a smoothly-broken power law over the entire stellar-mass range for quiescent galaxies, defined as:
(5)
where \( \alpha\) and \( \beta\) are the low and high-mass power-law slopes, \( \mathrm{ M}_{p}\) is the pivot mass and \( R_{p}\) is the corresponding size for a given pivot mass.
When fitting the size-mass relations, we choose a constant uncertainty on galaxy sizes of \( 0.1\,\) dex, due to the uncertainties provided by Galfit being significantly underestimated [76]. The F356W images provide physical resolution almost the same as the HST F160W images used to measure sizes in [10]. In this earlier work, the size measurements for VANDELS quiescent galaxies agreed with those from [11, 12] to within \( \pm0.1\) dex. The constant error adopted for the fitting presented in this paper therefore provides a more realistic estimate of the typical uncertainty in galaxy sizes [e.g. 55, 10].
Overall, we find that our rest-frame near-IR sizes are \( \simeq 0.15\) dex smaller than \( z\leq3\) sizes measured in the rest-frame optical, consistent with results reported by numerous previous studies [e.g. 77, 9, 78, 16, 18].
In the top panel of Fig. 3, we present the size-mass distributions and relations for star-forming galaxies from \( z = 0.25\) to \( z = 2.25\) . From Fig. 3, and the results presented in Table 4, it is clear that the normalisation of the star-forming size-mass relation decreases with increasing redshift, consistent with galaxies having larger sizes at later times. Additionally, our results suggest that there is no strong evolution in the slope of the star-forming galaxy size-mass relation from \( z = 2.25\) to \( z = 0.25\) , consistent with previous literature results that also fit the size-mass relation with a shallow slope of \( \alpha \simeq 0.2\) [e.g. 12, 77]. The normalisation of the star-forming galaxy size-mass relation increases by only \( \sim 0.15\) dex between \( z = 2.25\) and \( z = 0.25\) , compared to the \( \sim 0.40\) dex increase observed for high-mass quiescent galaxies.
In the second row of Fig. 3, we present our double power-law fits to the size-mass relations for the entire quiescent galaxy distribution. These fits could only be performed at \( z <1.75\) , due to small number statistics in the highest-redshift bin. A clear flattening in the low-mass slope of the quiescent galaxy size-mass relation can be seen, consistent with the results of other studies over the same redshift range [e.g. 12, 13, 14, 57, 18].
Upon inspection, we find that our double power-law fits do not accurately describe the quiescent galaxy population as a whole. Although the high-mass slopes determined by [13] and [14] broadly agree with our fits, they do not account for the galaxies in the low-mass end of the high-mass sample, or the apparent stellar-mass gap between the low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies.
We therefore perform separate single power-law fits on the low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxy samples, to capture their true underlying distribution. If low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies are indeed quenching via different mechanisms, and thus proceeding along different evolutionary pathways, it is entirely reasonable to treat these sub-populations separately. The results of our single power-law fits to the quiescent galaxies are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 3 , with the best-fitting parameters listed in Table 4.
| star-forming | low-mass quiescent | high-mass quiescent | ||||
| Redshift | \( \alpha\) | \( \mathrm{log}(A)\) | \( \alpha\) | \( \mathrm{log}(A)\) | \( \alpha\) | \( \mathrm{log}(A)\) |
| \( 0.25 < z < 0.75\) | \( 0.21 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.63 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.18 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.44 \pm 0.05\) | \( 0.56 \pm 0.08\) | \( 0.31\pm 0.05\) |
| \( 0.75 < z < 1.25\) | \( 0.17 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.53 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.17 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.42 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.69 \pm 0.08\) | \( 0.10 \pm 0.02\) |
| \( 1.25 < z < 1.75\) | \( 0.17 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.48 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.17â\) | \( 0.34 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.60 \pm 0.07\) | \( 0.02 \pm 0.02\) |
| \( 1.75 < z < 2.25\) | \( 0.17 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.46 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.17â\) | \( 0.30 \pm 0.04\) | \( 0.55 \pm 0.08\) | \( -0.07 \pm 0.02\) |
| Redshift | \( r_{\mathrm{p}}\) | \( \alpha\) | \( \beta\) | \( M_{\mathrm{p}}\) |
| \( 0.25 < z < 0.75\) | \( 1.80 \pm 0.16\) | \( 0.09 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.43 \pm 0.14\) | \( 10.48 \pm 0.18\) |
| \( 0.75 < z < 1.25\) | \( 1.14 \pm 0.08\) | \( -0.01 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.89 \pm 0.23\) | \( 10.65 \pm 0.10\) |
| \( 1.25 < z < 1.75\) | \( 0.90\pm 0.06\) | \( -0.10 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.56 \pm 0.12\) | \( 10.53 \pm 0.10\) |
The bottom panel of Fig. 3 suggests that the quiescent galaxy population is indeed separated into two sub-populations, split at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \simeq10\) , fully consistent with the GSMF results presented in Section 4.1 and potentially signifying two distinct evolutionary channels for low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies (i.e. environmental vs. mass quenching).
In all four redshift bins, it is notable that the slope of the low-mass quiescent galaxy size-mass relation is shallower than the higher-mass relation. The low-mass slope mirrors that of the star-forming galaxies, albeit with a lower normalisation, and is consistent with quiescent galaxies displaying smaller sizes than star-forming galaxies at fixed stellar mass. This may point to the progenitors of these low-mass quiescent galaxies being star-forming galaxies that are smaller on average than the overall star-forming population.
In contrast, the slope of the size-mass relation for higher-mass quiescent galaxies is steeper than that of lower-mass quiescent and star-forming galaxies. Moreover, we note that the high-mass slope of the double power-law and single power-law fits agree within \( 1 \sigma\) (\( \alpha \simeq 0.5\) ), and are consistent with the results of several recent studies of the size-mass relation in massive quiescent galaxies at \( z >1\) [e.g. 12, 77, 10]. These findings indicate that star-forming, low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies occupy distinct regions of the size-mass plane, consistent with recent results at cosmic noon from [16]. In Section 5.2, we investigate possible quenching mechanisms which could reproduce the observed trends.
In the top panel of Fig. 4 we show the size-mass distribution of PRIMER quiescent galaxies colour-coded by Sérsic index and present the median values of size, Sérsic index and axis ratio as a function of redshift in Table 6. In our sample, the low-mass quiescent galaxies clearly have much lower Sérsic indices than their high-mass counterparts, and this trend is observable up to \( z\leq 2.25\) . It is unlikely that this clear difference is purely a result of increasing stellar mass, considering that high-mass star-forming galaxies do not have such extreme Sérsic indices. This result confirms for the first time, over a wide redshift range, that low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies are indeed morphologically different populations.
It can be seen from Table 6 that massive star-forming galaxies do have higher Sérsic indices than the overall star-forming population, which may be indicative of the formation of a more prominent bulge component in comparison to lower-mass star-forming galaxies. However, this difference in Sérsic index with mass is much less dramatic than the observed distinction between the low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies. Indeed, Table 6 also indicates that low-mass quiescent galaxies have higher Sérsic indices than star-forming galaxies of the same mass. This result may suggest that the Sérsic indices displayed by the lower-mass quiescent galaxies are associated with morphologies transitioning from disc-like to lenticular/S0 galaxies. In Section 5, we discuss these results in the context of quenching and galaxy evolution.
We use Statmorph to calculate non-parametric morphological statistics, including the Gini coefficient (\( G\) ) and \( M_{20}\) , the second-order moment of the brightest 20% of pixels. In the bottom panel of Fig. 4, we show the distribution of our quiescent galaxies on the \( G-M_{20}\) plane, colour-coded by Sérsic index, with the separating regions as defined in [17]. Galaxies with higher Sérsic indices appear to mostly populate the E/S0 region of the \( G-M_{20}\) plane, whilst galaxies with lower Sérsic indices, and lower stellar masses, mostly populate the Sb/Sc/Irr region. Although not shown on the diagram, the star-forming galaxies in our sample mainly occupy the spiral region, suggesting that low-mass quiescent galaxies possess morphologies more similar to the star-forming population than the high-mass quiescent galaxy population.
| star-forming | all | \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) < 10.0\) | \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \geq 10.0\) | ||||||
| Redshift | \( n\) | \( q\) | \( R\mathrm{_{e}/kpc}\) | \( n\) | \( q\) | \( R\mathrm{_{e}/kpc}\) | \( n\) | \( q\) | \( R\mathrm{_{e}/kpc}\) |
| \( 0.25 < z < 0.75\) | \( 1.20 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.50\pm0.01\) | \( 1.72 \pm 0.06\) | \( 1.17\pm 0.01\) | \( 0.48 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.68\pm 0.08\) | \( 1.93 \pm 0.13\) | \( 0.53 \pm 0.02\) | \( 3.37 \pm 0.35\) |
| \( 0.75 < z < 1.25\) | \( 1.26 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.48 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.59 \pm 0.08\) | \( 1.22 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.47 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.54 \pm 0.80\) | \( 1.91 \pm 0.09\) | \( 0.52 \pm 0.01\) | \( 3.01 \pm 0.27\) |
| \( 1.25 < z < 1.75\) | \( 1.33 \pm 0.01\) | \( 0.45 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.50 \pm 0.10\) | \( 1.30 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.45 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.44 \pm 0.10\) | \( 1.94 \pm 0.08\) | \( 0.55 \pm 0.01\) | \( 2.69 \pm 0.20\) |
| \( 1.75 < z < 2.25\) | \( 1.34 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.44 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.47 \pm 0.08\) | \( 1.32 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.43 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.42 \pm 0.10\) | \( 1.68 \pm 0.08\) | \( 0.53 \pm 0.01\) | \( 2.45 \pm 0.44\) |
| quiescent | all | \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) < 10.0\) | \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \geq 10.0\) | ||||||
| Redshift | \( n\) | \( q\) | \( R\mathrm{_{e}/kpc}\) | \( n\) | \( q\) | \( R\mathrm{_{e}/kpc}\) | \( n\) | \( q\) | \( R\mathrm{_{e}/kpc}\) |
| \( 0.25 < z < 0.75\) | \( 1.62 \pm 0.07\) | \( 0.64 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.30 \pm 0.07\) | \( 1.44 \pm 0.05\) | \( 0.65 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.19\pm 0.08\) | \( 5.25 \pm 0.20\) | \( 0.61 \pm 0.02\) | \( 1.95 \pm 0.40\) |
| \( 0.75 < z < 1.25\) | \( 2.38 \pm 0.12\) | \( 0.63 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.19 \pm 0.50\) | \( 1.66 \pm 0.11\) | \( 0.63 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.17 \pm 0.78\) | \( 5.15\pm 0.20\) | \( 0.65 \pm 0.02\) | \( 1.44 \pm 1.00\) |
| \( 1.25 < z < 1.75\) | \( 3.53 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.68 \pm 0.01\) | \( 1.11 \pm 0.07\) | \( 2.04 \pm 0.23\) | \( 0.71 \pm 0.03\) | \( 1.12 \pm 0.25\) | \( 4.37 \pm 0.20\) | \( 0.67 \pm0.02\) | \( 1.08 \pm 0.10\) |
| \( 1.75 < z < 2.25\) | \( 3.90 \pm 0.18\) | \( 0.68 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.90 \pm 0.14\) | \( 2.36 \pm 0.31\) | \( 0.72 \pm 0.04\) | \( 0.97 \pm 0.10\) | \( 4.22 \pm 0.25\) | \( 0.66 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.89 \pm 0.08\) |
The size evolution of galaxies can be parameterised by a power-law relation of the form:
(6)
We fit this relation to the median sizes within each redshift bin for the star-forming and quiescent galaxies over the full stellar-mass range, and separately between \( 8 < \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) < 10\) and \( 10 < \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) < 12\) . Overall, our best-fitting relations (see Table 7) are in very good agreement with previous literature results [14, 57, 12]. As shown in Fig. 5, we find that the sizes of low-mass quiescent galaxies evolve as \( R_\mathrm{{e}} \propto (1+z)^{-0.24\pm 0.08}\) , which is the same rate as the evolution of star-forming galaxies in the same stellar-mass range; \( R_\mathrm{{e}} \propto (1+z)^{-0.25\pm 0.03}\) . However, the evolution of low-mass quiescent galaxies is much slower than the \( R_\mathrm{{e}} \propto(1+z)^{-1.14\pm 0.02}\) followed by high-mass quiescent galaxies. These results suggest that the population of low-mass quiescent galaxies are drawn from a parent population of low-mass (dwarf) star-forming galaxies.
Based on a sample of \( 0.5 < z < 2.5\) galaxies with JWST imaging from the COSMOS-WEB and PRIMER surveys, [18] derive qualitatively similar results to this study. They also find that low-mass quiescent galaxies evolve at a similar rate to star-forming galaxies and much more slowly than their high-mass counterparts, although the slopes they obtain at low-stellar masses are somewhat steeper than derived here.
| star-forming | quiescent | |||
| \( B_{z}\) | \( \beta\) | \( B_{z}\) | \( \beta\) | |
| low | \( 1.84 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.25 \pm 0.03\) | \( 1.33 \pm 0.02\) | \( 0.24 \pm 0.08\) |
| high | \( 4.07 \pm 0.07\) | \( 0.45 \pm 0.02\) | \( 3.07 \pm 0.06\) | \( 1.14 \pm 0.02\) |
| all | \( 1.89 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.24 \pm 0.02\) | \( 1.60 \pm 0.03\) | \( 0.42 \pm 0.11\) |
According to our best-fitting relations, the median sizes of low-mass star-forming and quiescent galaxies both increase by only \( \simeq 0.08\) dex between \( z\simeq 2\) and \( z\simeq 0.5\) . In contrast, size evolution in the high-mass bin is more rapid, with star-forming galaxies and quiescent galaxies increasing in size by \( \simeq 0.14\) dex and \( \simeq 0.34\) dex, respectively. The particularly rapid size growth of the high-mass quiescent galaxies is likely to reflect the impact of minor mergers, which are able to increase the half-light radii of galaxies without significantly increasing their stellar mass [e.g. 79, 55, 80, 81, 82, 10].
In the previous Section 4, we report new size-mass relations for our star-forming and quiescent galaxy samples in PRIMER. Here, we focus on the relationships between stellar mass, size and Sérsic index, within the context of galaxy quenching mechanisms.
In Section 4.1, we presented the number densities of quiescent and star-forming galaxies derived from the JWST PRIMER survey. These results are in good agreement with the results presented in [1] and [2], especially given the difference in survey area (i.e. \( \simeq 300\) sq. arcmin versus \( \simeq 3\) sq. degrees & 1000 sq. arcmin, respectively). Within the PRIMER data, we find that the star-forming GSMF can be well described by a single Schechter function that displays only mild evolution in its normalisation out to \( z\simeq 2\) . This result is well established and our determination of the star-forming GSMF is in good agreement with those of a wide variety of previous studies [e.g. 83, 32, 33].
In contrast, it can be seen from Fig. 2 that the quiescent GSMF evolves rapidly and is better described by a double Schechter function over the full redshift range of our sample. The two components of the double Schechter function are necessary to reproduce the higher numbers of low-mass quiescent galaxies beginning to enter the population at \( z = 2.25\) and likely reflect the two distinct mechanisms by which galaxies quench; environmental quenching, which is independent of mass, and internal quenching, which is dependent on mass [31, 36, 2].
The data presented in this paper extend 1-dex lower in stellar mass than [1], and provide the first demonstration with JWST of an environmental upturn at \( z\geq 2.0\) . Within the PRIMER survey alone, the number densities of quiescent galaxies at higher redshift make it difficult to confirm whether this signature of environmental quenching is also present at \( z>2.5\) . This open question will require wider-area imaging with sufficient depth to robustly select high-redshift quiescent galaxies down to \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \simeq 9\) .
Extreme events such as mergers, or interactions involving high-speed fly-bys between galaxies, can affect the morphology of galaxies and increase their Sérsic indices as they transform from disc-dominated to spheroid-dominated [84]. Disc instabilities in galaxies can also increase Sérsic index; gravitational instabilities redistribute angular momentum, causing material to be pushed towards the centre and resulting in a bulge-dominated galaxy [e.g. 85, 86].
In [19], the authors found evidence for a very low-mass quiescent galaxy within an over-density at \( z \sim 2\) (with a stellar mass of \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) \sim 9.0\) ), as well as two other more massive candidate quiescent galaxies in the nearby region, with properties consistent with environment-driven quenching. Their results demonstrate that a galaxy’s environment can still be responsible for quenching at early times, and these observations lend support to our results demonstrating an environment-driven upturn in the quiescent GSMF at \( z \sim 2.0\) . This suggests that the observed distribution in size and Sérsic index in our PRIMER sample is linked to different evolutionary pathways for low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies.
[16] study the sizes of quiescent galaxies at cosmic noon (\( 1 < z< 3\) ) selected from the PRIMER and UNCOVER surveys. They also find that low-mass and high-mass quiescent galaxies form two distinct populations of galaxies, suggesting that there may be two separate pathways of galaxy formation and quenching at these redshifts, hinted at by differences in axis ratio, Sérsic index and a constant average size over the low-mass range. The size-mass relations and the trends observed between various morphological parameters derived in [16] at cosmic noon are in very good agreement with the results reported in this paper at \( 0.25 <z < 2.25\) .
Large samples of star-forming, quiescent and post-starburst galaxies show that the number density of low-mass quiescent galaxies increases rapidly towards lower redshift [36], with some studies finding a sharp upturn in the number of \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) <10\) quiescent and PSBs in more dense environments up to \( z < 2\) [ 87].
The high-mass quiescent galaxies in our sample have stellar masses, sizes and Sérsic indices consistent with quenching via AGN feedback, coupled with growth due to minor mergers. Our results are consistent with the idea that feedback-driven quenching in massive galaxies can result in larger sizes [88]. [107] find that, using Adaptive Mesh Refinement code Ramses, AGN feedback can reproduce the observed scaling relations up to \( z\sim 2\) . Similarly, [108] examine the role of AGN feedback on galaxy morphology over a range of redshifts using the hydrodynamical cosmological simulation, HorizonAGN, with and without an AGN component. The authors find that incorporating AGN feedback reproduces the observed size-mass relation of massive quiescent galaxies, albeit with a shallower slope than found by [12] and broadly consistent with the one found in this work. The lack of star-forming galaxies with comparable Sérsic indices to the high-mass quiescent galaxies in our sample indicates that internal quenching mechanisms are likely responsible for the high values of Sérsic index observed for massive quiescent galaxies.
At lower redshifts, the progenitors of low-mass quiescent galaxies are proposed to be star-forming galaxies that have been quenched in high-density environments [89]. As discussed in [20], galaxies in high-density environments such as clusters are affected by the intra-cluster medium (ICM); as a galaxy falls into a cluster, the pressure of the ICM is greater than the gravitational force between the gas and stellar disk within the galaxy, and gas will be stripped [ram-pressure stripping, 28]. This results in the disk of the galaxy fading and reddening over time as the stars within it age, and galaxies falling into cluster centres are expected to have quenched within 1-3 Gyr (at most, 6 Gyr) of entering the dense environment [see e.g. 90, 91, 92]. This may explain the lower SFRs and older stellar populations possessed by low-mass quiescent galaxies in high-density environments [see also 93, 94, 95]. Recent studies combining spatially resolved spectroscopy of so-called “jellyfish” galaxies with simulations suggest that star-formation quenching in cluster environments can significantly affect the morphology of an infalling galaxy population on timescales of a few Gyr [96].
In cluster environments, galaxies close to the centre of the cluster have had more time to lose their star-forming outskirts, resulting in smaller sizes, as observed in the optical, due to the reddening of the disk. However, tidal stripping is also effective at removing some of the loosely bound matter (stars) from the outskirts of galaxies [89], and together these processes can work to quench the galaxy outside-in, where the remaining gas towards the centre of the galaxy is used up in star-formation, with the galaxy eventually becoming red and passive but still possessing a (now slightly smaller) disk component, as observed in our PRIMER sample of low-mass quiescent galaxies.
[21] study a sample of 201 star-forming galaxies from the SAMI Galaxy Survey, investigating spatially resolved properties of the environmental quenching of star-formation in galaxies at \( 0.001 < z < 0.1\) . By examining the dust-corrected H\( \alpha\) line profiles of these galaxies, and thus the star-formation gradients, the authors find that the fraction of galaxies with centrally-concentrated star formation increases with environment density (for fifth nearest neighbour local environment densities). This result suggests that star formation is suppressed outside-in, such that quenching occurs on the outskirts of the galaxies in dense environments, consistent with mechanisms such as ram-pressure stripping. This scenario is consistent with the galaxies transforming from disc/spirals to S0-type and may explain the large number of red, S0-type galaxies in clusters [e.g. 97, 98].
In the local Universe, the size-mass relation of quiescent galaxies also reflects that observed at higher redshift; towards lower stellar masses, the size-mass relation flattens. Dwarf early-type galaxies appear to have sizes consistent with low-mass star-forming galaxies in the Fornax cluster, and combining these results with the colour-surface brightness relation appears to support a scenario that is consistent with quenching via gas removal [99], although they find no evidence for an ageing stellar population imprinted on the early-type sample. Studies also find that the size evolution of galaxies in cluster environments is slower in comparison to the field [100].
Additionally, mechanisms that remove the gas from galaxies have been suggested to contribute to the quenching of low-mass galaxies in dense environments. Locally, [22] find evidence for fast (< 1 Gyr) quenching by ram-pressure stripping of satellite galaxies within dense environments (within \( \sim 2\) Mpc from Milky Way-like hosts) in simulations of the Local Group. However, this scenario is highly dependent on distance as ram pressure increases sharply towards the centre of the halo; a galaxy can spend a lot of time (\( \sim 1-3\) Gyr) falling into the cluster, but is then increasingly affected by ram pressure the closer it gets to the cluster centre.
These trends have also been seen at higher redshifts; up to \( z < 1\) , results suggest that low-mass quiescent galaxies sit in preferentially higher density environments than their high-mass counterparts, and the number of low-mass star-forming galaxies in dense environments increases between \( z \sim 1\) to \( z = 0.4\) [e.g. 101, 102]. Evidence for fast and slow environmental quenching pathways have been discussed at low redshift, with some studies suggesting that major mergers or ram-pressure stripping of low-mass galaxies in the central regions of the cluster centre can cause quenching within a few hundred Myr [see e.g 103, 104]. Internally-driven mechanisms such as star-formation outflows can also interrupt the cold gas supply and quench satellite galaxies before effects such as ram-pressure stripping can take place [overconsumption, see 105].
In Fig. 5, we show the evolution of sizes for star-forming and quiescent galaxies at \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) < 10\) , \( \mathrm{log}_{10} (M_{\star}/\mathrm{M}_{\odot}) >10\) and over the full stellar-mass range in each of the three panels, respectively. The middle panel confirms previous literature results at high stellar masses; massive star-forming galaxies (\( R_{\mathrm{e}} \propto (1 + z)^{-0.45}\) ) evolve much less dramatically than massive quiescent galaxies (\( R_{\mathrm{e}} \propto (1 + z)^{-1.14}\) ) over the full redshift range. At low-stellar masses, we observe a different picture; both star-forming and quiescent galaxies evolve similarly from \( z = 2.25\) to \( z = 0.25\) , suggesting that the quiescent population is unaffected by mergers or interactions over this time.
If we consider a low-mass star-forming galaxy with a size of \( \sim 1.2\) kpc entering a dense environment at redshift \( z < 3\) , it will have undergone environment-driven quenching after spending around 1-3 Gyr in this dense environment. This process could plausibly place the galaxy on the observed size-redshift relation (see Fig. 5). This scenario is consistent with cluster infall times from simulations and local Universe observations, and does not significantly affect the observed size of the galaxy. Passive evolution (no mergers or interactions) would allow enough cosmic time for the galaxy to begin building up a “pseudo” bulge, in agreement with the slightly higher Sérsic indices of low-mass quiescent galaxies compared to star-forming galaxies found in this work.
These results suggest that the progenitor population of low-mass quiescent galaxies are low-mass or dwarf star-forming galaxies that quench via environment-driven mechanisms. Further investigation into the local environment of such galaxies, as well as more sophisticated modelling of quenching at lower stellar masses is needed to provide more quantitative evidence for the effect of environmental quenching mechanisms and their relative timescales.
In this work, we explore the relationships between stellar mass, size and morphology at \( 0.25 < z < 2.25\) for samples of quiescent and star-forming galaxies by utilising high-quality photometric data and imaging from the JWST PRIMER survey. The main conclusions can be summarised as follows:
Using deep near-infrared imaging from the PRIMER survey, we have shown that the quiescent GSMF exhibits the low-mass upturn associated with environmental-driven quenching mechanisms. We have also demonstrated that high-mass quiescent galaxies display morphologies and sizes evolution consistent with the expectations of quenching via internal mechanisms, coupled with growth via minor mergers. In contrast, we find that low-mass quiescent galaxies exhibit size-mass relations and morphologies qualitatively consistent with quenching via infall into cluster environments.
Upcoming, large-scale, near-IR spectroscopic surveys such as MOONRISE [106] will provide additional information on the kinematics, metallicities and ages of quiescent galaxies, together with improved constraints on their star-formation histories. Moreover, spectroscopic surveys with high completeness will also provide crucial constraints on the local density in which individual galaxies reside, laying the groundwork for a more solid understanding of the dominant quenching mechanisms at cosmic noon.
M. L. Hamadouche, R. Begley, and C. T. Donnan acknowledge the support of the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council. J.S. Dunlop acknowledges the support of the Royal Society via a Research Professorship. A. C. Carnall acknowledges support from a UKRI Frontier Research Guarantee Grant [grant reference EP/Y037065/1]. F. Cullen and T. M. Stanton acknowledge support from a UKRI Frontier Research Guarantee Grant (PI Cullen; grant reference EP/X021025/1). KEW acknowledges funding from JWST-GO-1837. OA acknowledges the support of STFC grant ST/X006581/1. The authors would also like to thank S. Manning, S. Wellons & J. Antwi-Danso for helpful discussions in the writing of this paper.
All JWST and HST data products are available via the Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes (https://mast.stsci.edu). Additional data products are available from the authors upon reasonable request.
[1] The evolution of the galaxy stellar-mass function over the last 12 billion years from a combination of ground-based and HST surveys Monthly Notices of the RAS 2021 503 3 4413-4435 may 10.1093/mnras/stab731
[2] The Stellar Mass Function in CANDELS and Frontier Fields: The Buildup of Low-mass Passive Galaxies since z 3 Astrophysical Journal 2022 940 2 135 dec 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9a48
[3] On the variation of the initial mass function Monthly Notices of the RAS 2001 322 2 231-246 apr 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x
[4] The Chemical Composition of the Sun Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2009 47 1 481-522 sep 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145222
[5] Dust Attenuation Curves in the Local Universe: Demographics and New Laws for Star-forming Galaxies and High-redshift Analogs The Astrophysical Journal 2018 859 1 11 may 10.3847/1538-4357/aabf3c
[6] The Dust Content and Opacity of Actively Star-forming Galaxies Astrophysical Journal 2000 533 2 682-695 apr 10.1086/308692
[7] Nebular Continuum and Line Emission in Stellar Population Synthesis Models Astrophysical Journal 2017 840 1 44 may 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6c66
[8] zCOSMOS - 10k-bright spectroscopic sample. The bimodality in the galaxy stellar mass function: exploring its evolution with redshift Astronomy and Astrophysics 2010 523 A13 nov 10.1051/0004-6361/200913020
[9] Rest-frame Near-infrared Sizes of Galaxies at Cosmic Noon: Objects in JWST's Mirror Are Smaller than They Appeared Ästrophysical Journal 2022 937 2 L33 oct 10.3847/2041-8213/ac8e06
[10] A combined VANDELS and LEGA-C study: the evolution of quiescent galaxy size, stellar mass, and age from z = 0.6 to z = 1.3 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2022 512 1 1262-1274 may 10.1093/mnras/stac535
[11] Structural Parameters of Galaxies in CANDELS Ästrophysical Journal 2012 203 2 24 dec 10.1088/0067-0049/203/2/24
[12] 3D-HST+CANDELS: The Evolution of the Galaxy Size-Mass Distribution since z = 3 Astrophysical Journal 2014 788 1 28 jun 10.1088/0004-637X/788/1/28
[13] Extending the evolution of the stellar mass-size relation at \( z \leq 2\) to low stellar mass galaxies from HFF and CANDELS arXiv e-prints 2021 arXiv:2106.07663 jun
[14] Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program: A Mass-Dependent Slope of the Galaxy Size-Mass Relation at \( z<1\) arXiv e-prints 2021 arXiv:2109.09766 sep
[15] A Mass-dependent Slope of the Galaxy Size-Mass Relation out to z \( \sim\) 3: Further Evidence for a Direct Relation between Median Galaxy Size and Median Halo Mass Ästrophysical Journal 2019 872 1 L13 feb 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0379
[16] Two Distinct Classes of Quiescent Galaxies at Cosmic Noon Revealed by JWST PRIMER and UNCOVER Ästrophysical Journal 2024 967 2 L23 jun 10.3847/2041-8213/ad464c
[17] The Evolution of Galaxy Mergers and Morphology at z < 1.2 in the Extended Groth Strip Astrophysical Journal 2008 672 1 177-197 jan 10.1086/523659
[18] The Size/Mass Relation at Rest-frame 1.5 \( \mu\) m from JWST/NIRCam in the COSMOS-WEB and PRIMER-COSMOS Fields Astrophysical Journal 2024 972 2 134 sep 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5c6a
[19] JADES: deep spectroscopy of a low-mass galaxy at redshift 2.3 quenched by environment arXiv e-prints 2023 arXiv:2307.08633 jul 10.48550/arXiv.2307.08633
[20] The effects of the cluster environment on the galaxy mass-size relation in MACS J1206.2-0847 Astronomy and Astrophysics 2017 604 A54 aug 10.1051/0004-6361/201630252
[21] The SAMI Galaxy Survey: spatially resolving the environmental quenching of star formation in GAMA galaxies Monthly Notices of the RAS 2017 464 1 121-142 jan 10.1093/mnras/stw2289
[22] A jolt to the system: ram pressure on low-mass galaxies in simulations of the Local Group Monthly Notices of the RAS 2023 525 3 3849-3864 nov 10.1093/mnras/stad2576
[23] Color Separation of Galaxy Types in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Imaging Data Astronomical Journal 2001 122 4 1861-1874 oct 10.1086/323301
[24] Quantifying the Bimodal Color-Magnitude Distribution of Galaxies Astrophysical Journal 2004 600 2 681-694 jan 10.1086/380092
[25] Physical Models of Galaxy Formation in a Cosmological Framework Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2015 53 1 51-113 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-140951
[26] The Origin of Dwarf Galaxies, Cold Dark Matter, and Biased Galaxy Formation Astrophysical Journal 1986 303 39 apr 10.1086/164050
[27] Galaxy bimodality due to cold flows and shock heating Monthly Notices of the RAS 2006 368 1 2-20 may 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10145.x
[28] On the Infall of Matter Into Clusters of Galaxies and Some Effects on Their Evolution Astrophysical Journal 1972 176 1 aug 10.1086/151605
[29] The growth of red sequence galaxies in a cosmological hydrodynamic simulation Monthly Notices of the RAS 2012 427 3 1816-1829 dec 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21640.x
[30] Mergers in \( \Lambda\) CDM: Uncertainties in Theoretical Predictions and Interpretations of the Merger Rate Astrophysical Journal 2010 724 2 915-945 dec 10.1088/0004-637X/724/2/915
[31] Mass and Environment as Drivers of Galaxy Evolution in SDSS and zCOSMOS and the Origin of the Schechter Function Astrophysical Journal 2010 721 1 193-221 sep 10.1088/0004-637X/721/1/193
[32] The Evolution of the Stellar Mass Functions of Star-forming and Quiescent Galaxies to z = 4 from the COSMOS/UltraVISTA Survey Astrophysical Journal 2013 777 1 18 nov 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/18
[33] The COSMOS2015 galaxy stellar mass function . Thirteen billion years of stellar mass assembly in ten snapshots Astronomy and Astrophysics 2017 605 A70 sep 10.1051/0004-6361/201730419
[34] The connection between stellar mass, age and quenching timescale in massive quiescent galaxies at z ≃ 1 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2023 mar 10.1093/mnras/stad773
[35] From Carbon to Cobalt: Chemical Compositions and Ages of z 0.7 Quiescent Galaxies Astrophysical Journal 2023 948 2 140 may 10.3847/1538-4357/acc176
[36] The Effects of Environment on the Evolution of the Galaxy Stellar Mass Function Astrophysical Journal 2018 854 1 30 feb 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa766
[37] The JWST EXCELS survey: too much, too young, too fast? Ultra-massive quiescent galaxies at 3 < z < 5 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2024 534 1 325-348 oct 10.1093/mnras/stae2092
[38] Efficient formation of a massive quiescent galaxy at redshift 4.9 arXiv e-prints 2024 arXiv:2404.05683 apr 10.48550/arXiv.2404.05683
[39] A massive quiescent galaxy at redshift 4.658 Nature 2023 619 7971 716-719 jul 10.1038/s41586-023-06158-6
[40] COSMOS2020: Exploring the Dawn of Quenching for Massive Galaxies at 3 < z < 5 with a New Color-selection Method Astronomical Journal 2023 165 6 248 jun 10.3847/1538-3881/accadc
[41] An Atlas of Color-selected Quiescent Galaxies at z > 3 in Public JWST Fields Astrophysical Journal 2023 947 1 20 apr 10.3847/1538-4357/acbefa
[42] {The FENIKS Survey: Spectroscopic Confirmation of Massive Quiescent Galaxies at z 3-5 arXiv e-prints 2023 arXiv:2307.09590 jul 10.48550/arXiv.2307.09590
[43] Efficient NIRCam Selection of Quiescent Galaxies at 3 < z < 6 in CEERS Astrophysical Journal 2024 970 1 68 jul 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4cea
[44] A massive galaxy that formed its stars at z \( \approx\) 11 Nature 2024 628 8007 277-281 apr 10.1038/s41586-024-07191-9
[45] The size distribution of galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Monthly Notices of the RAS 2003 343 3 978-994 aug 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06740.x
[46] Elemental Abundances and Ages of \( z\sim0.7\) Quiescent Galaxies on the Mass-Size Plane: Implication for Chemical Enrichment and Star-Formation Quenching arXiv e-prints 2021 arXiv:2105.12750 may
[47] The LEGA-C and SAMI galaxy surveys: quiescent stellar populations and the mass-size plane across 6 Gyr Monthly Notices of the RAS 2022 512 3 3828-3845 may 10.1093/mnras/stac705
[48] The morphologies of massive galaxies at 1 < z < 3 in the CANDELS-UDS field: compact bulges, and the rise and fall of massive discs Monthly Notices of the RAS 2012 427 2 1666-1701 dec 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22087.x
[49] The decomposed bulge and disc size-mass relations of massive galaxies at 1 < z < 3 in CANDELS Monthly Notices of the RAS 2014 444 2 1660-1673 oct 10.1093/mnras/stu1537
[50] The VANDELS ESO public spectroscopic survey Monthly Notices of the RAS 2018 479 1 25-42 sep 10.1093/mnras/sty1213
[51] The VLT LEGA-C Spectroscopic Survey: The Physics of Galaxies at a Lookback Time of 7 Gyr Ästrophysical Journal 2016 223 2 29 apr 10.3847/0067-0049/223/2/29
[52] Strong size evolution of the most massive galaxies since z \( \sim\) 2 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2007 382 1 109-120 nov 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12388.x
[53] The Hubble Sequence Beyond z = 2 for Massive Galaxies: Contrasting Large Star-forming and Compact Quiescent Galaxies Ästrophysical Journal 2009 705 1 L71-L75 nov 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/L71
[54] Fast evolving size of early-type galaxies at >z > 2 and the role of dissipationless (dry) merging Monthly Notices of the RAS 2012 422 1 L62-L66 may 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01237.x
[55] The sizes, masses and specific star formation rates of massive galaxies at 1.3 < z < 1.5: strong evidence in favour of evolution via minor mergers Monthly Notices of the RAS 2013 428 2 1088-1106 jan 10.1093/mnras/sts092
[56] Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): mass-size relations of z < 0.1 galaxies subdivided by Sérsic index, colour and morphology Monthly Notices of the RAS 2015 447 3 2603-2630 mar 10.1093/mnras/stu2467
[57] Diagnosing DASH: A Catalog of Structural Properties for the COSMOS-DASH Survey Astrophysical Journal 2022 925 1 34 jan 10.3847/1538-4357/ac341c
[58] The importance of satellite quenching for the build-up of the red sequence of present-day galaxies Monthly Notices of the RAS 2008 387 1 79-91 jun 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13230.x
[59] Effect of Local Environment and Stellar Mass on Galaxy Quenching and Morphology at 0.5 < z < 2.0 Astrophysical Journal 2017 847 2 134 oct 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8b75
[60] {HST/WFC3 Confirmation of the Inside-out Growth of Massive Galaxies at 0 < z < 2 and Identification of Their Star-forming Progenitors at z 3 Astrophysical Journal 2013 766 1 15 mar 10.1088/0004-637X/766/1/15
[61] Massive post-starburst galaxies at z > 1 are compact proto-spheroids Monthly Notices of the RAS 2017 472 2 1401-1412 dec 10.1093/mnras/stx1957
[62] PRIMER: Public Release IMaging for Extragalactic Research JWST Proposal. Cycle 1 mar 2021
[63] CANDELS: The Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey Ästrophysical Journal 2011 197 2 35 dec 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/35
[64] CANDELS: The Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Legacy Survey—The Hubble Space Telescope Observations, Imaging Data Products, and Mosaics Ästrophysical Journal 2011 197 2 36 dec 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/36
[65] SExtractor: Software for source extraction. Ästronomy and Astrophysics 1996 117 393-404 jun 10.1051/aas:1996164
[66] The evolution of [OIII]\( +\mathrm{H}\beta\) equivalent width from \( \mathbf{z\simeq3-8}\) : implications for the production and escape of ionizing photons during reionization arXiv e-prints 2024 arXiv:2410.10988 oct 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10988
[67] Inferring the star formation histories of massive quiescent galaxies with BAGPIPES: evidence for multiple quenching mechanisms Monthly Notices of the RAS 2018 480 4 4379-4401 nov 10.1093/mnras/sty2169
[68] Stellar population synthesis at the resolution of 2003 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2003 344 4 1000-1028 oct 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06897.x
[69] Modelling and interpreting spectral energy distributions of galaxies with BEAGLE Monthly Notices of the RAS 2016 462 2 1415-1443 oct 10.1093/mnras/stw1756
[70] The 2017 Release Cloudy Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica 2017 53 385-438 oct
[71] Detection of Quiescent Galaxies in a Bicolor Sequence from Z = 0-2 Astrophysical Journal 2009 691 2 1879-1895 feb 10.1088/0004-637X/691/2/1879
[72] JWST PRIMER: a new multifield determination of the evolving galaxy UV luminosity function at redshifts z ≃ 9 - 15 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2024 533 3 3222-3237 sep 10.1093/mnras/stae2037
[73] Detailed Structural Decomposition of Galaxy Images Astronomical Journal 2002 124 1 266-293 jul 10.1086/340952
[74] The optical morphologies of galaxies in the IllustrisTNG simulation: a comparison to Pan-STARRS observations Monthly Notices of the RAS 2019 483 3 4140-4159 mar 10.1093/mnras/sty3345
[75] The Evolution of Galaxy Structure Over Cosmic Time Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2014 52 291-337 aug 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040037
[76] GEMS: Galaxy Fitting Catalogs and Testing Parametric Galaxy Fitting Codes: GALFIT and GIM2D Ästrophysical Journal 2007 172 2 615-633 oct 10.1086/518836
[77] COSMOS-DASH: The Evolution of the Galaxy Size-Mass Relation since z 3 from New Wide-field WFC3 Imaging Combined with CANDELS/3D-HST Astrophysical Journal 2019 880 1 57 jul 10.3847/1538-4357/ab290a
[78] CEERS Key Paper. III. The Diversity of Galaxy Structure and Morphology at z = 3-9 with JWST Ästrophysical Journal 2023 946 1 L15 mar 10.3847/2041-8213/acad01
[79] Can Minor Merging Account for the Size Growth of Quiescent Galaxies? New Results from the CANDELS Survey Astrophysical Journal 2012 746 2 162 feb 10.1088/0004-637X/746/2/162
[80] Minor versus major mergers: the stellar mass growth of massive galaxies from z = 3 using number density selection techniques Monthly Notices of the RAS 2014 445 3 2198-2213 dec 10.1093/mnras/stu1802
[81] The cosmic assembly of stellar haloes in massive early-type Galaxies Monthly Notices of the RAS 2017 466 4 4888-4903 apr 10.1093/mnras/stw3382
[82] Color Gradients along the Quiescent Galaxy Sequence: Clues to Quenching and Structural Growth Ästrophysical Journal 2020 899 2 L26 aug 10.3847/2041-8213/abacc9
[83] The Galaxy mass function up to z =4 in the GOODS-MUSIC sample: into the epoch of formation of massive galaxies Astronomy and Astrophysics 2006 459 3 745-757 dec 10.1051/0004-6361:20065475
[84] Morphological Transformation from Galaxy Harassment Astrophysical Journal 1998 495 1 139-151 mar 10.1086/305264
[85] Secular Evolution and the Formation of Pseudobulges in Disk Galaxies Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 2004 42 1 603-683 sep 10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134024
[86] Quenching and morphological transformation in semi-analytic models and CANDELS Monthly Notices of the RAS 2015 451 3 2933-2956 aug 10.1093/mnras/stv1007
[87] The role of mass and environment in the build-up of the quenched galaxy population since cosmic noon Monthly Notices of the RAS 2023 522 2 2297-2306 jun 10.1093/mnras/stad1098
[88] Why stellar feedback promotes disc formation in simulated galaxies Monthly Notices of the RAS 2014 443 3 2092-2111 sep 10.1093/mnras/stu1275
[89] Environmental Effects on Late-Type Galaxies in Nearby Clusters Publications of the ASP 2006 118 842 517-559 apr 10.1086/500691
[90] Galaxy evolution in groups and clusters: satellite star formation histories and quenching time-scales in a hierarchical Universe Monthly Notices of the RAS 2013 432 1 336-358 jun 10.1093/mnras/stt469
[91] The influence of the environmental history on quenching star formation in a \( \Lambda\) cold dark matter universe Monthly Notices of the RAS 2014 444 3 2938-2959 nov 10.1093/mnras/stu1609
[92] Quenching time-scales of galaxies in the EAGLE simulations Monthly Notices of the RAS 2019 487 3 3740-3758 aug 10.1093/mnras/stz1410
[93] Spatially resolved comparison of SFRs from UV and H\( \alpha\) in GASP gas-stripped galaxies arXiv e-prints 2024 arXiv:2409.01351 sep 10.48550/arXiv.2409.01351
[94] Candidate ram-pressure stripped galaxies in six low-redshift clusters revealed from ultraviolet imaging arXiv e-prints 2024 arXiv:2409.10586 sep 10.48550/arXiv.2409.10586
[95] To high redshift and low mass: exploring the emergence of quenched galaxies and their environments at \( 3<z<6\) in the ultra-deep JADES MIRI F770W parallel arXiv e-prints 2023 arXiv:2312.12207 dec 10.48550/arXiv.2312.12207
[96] The morphological transformation of ram pressure stripped galaxies: a pathway from late to early galaxy types Monthly Notices of the RAS 2023 525 4 5359-5377 nov 10.1093/mnras/stad2604
[97] Galaxy Evolution in Abell 2390 Astrophysical Journal 1996 471 694 nov 10.1086/177999
[98] The transformation of Spirals into S0 galaxies in the cluster environment Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 2015 2 4 aug 10.3389/fspas.2015.00004
[99] Signatures of quenching in dwarf galaxies in local galaxy clusters. A comparison of the galaxy populations in the Virgo and Fornax clusters Astronomy and Astrophysics 2021 647 A80 mar 10.1051/0004-6361/202039408
[100] CANDELS Observations of the Structural Properties of Cluster Galaxies at z = 1.62 Astrophysical Journal 2012 750 2 93 may 10.1088/0004-637X/750/2/93
[101] zCOSMOS 20k: satellite galaxies are the main drivers of environmental effects in the galaxy population at least to z \( \sim\) 0.7 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2014 438 1 717-738 feb 10.1093/mnras/stt2241
[102] On the fast quenching of young low-mass galaxies up to z \( \sim\) 0.6: new spotlight on the lead role of environment Monthly Notices of the RAS 2018 479 2 2147-2160 sep 10.1093/mnras/sty1543
[103] The VIPERS Multi-Lambda Survey. II. Diving with massive galaxies in 22 square degrees since z = 1.5 Astronomy and Astrophysics 2016 590 A103 may 10.1051/0004-6361/201527294
[104] The enhancement of rapidly quenched galaxies in distant clusters at 0.5 < z < 1.0 Monthly Notices of the RAS 2018 476 1 1242-1257 may 10.1093/mnras/sty312
[105] Overconsumption, outflows and the quenching of satellite galaxies. Monthly Notices of the RAS 2014 442 L105-L109 jul 10.1093/mnrasl/slu066
[106] MOONS: The New Multi-Object Spectrograph for the VLT The Messenger 2020 180 10-17 jun 10.18727/0722-6691/5195
[107] AGN-driven quenching of star formation: morphological and dynamical implications for early-type galaxies Monthly Notices of the RAS 2013 433 4 3297-3313 aug 10.1093/mnras/stt997
[108] The HORIZON-AGN simulation: morphological diversity of galaxies promoted by AGN feedback Monthly Notices of the RAS 2016 463 4 3948-3964 dec 10.1093/mnras/stw2265
I am normally hidden by the status bar