Image Details

Choose export citation format:

SQuIGG﹩\overrightarrow{L}﹩E: Buried Star Formation Cannot Explain the Rapidly Fading CO(2–1) Luminosity in Massive, z ∼ 0.7 Post-starburst Galaxies

  • Authors: David J. Setton, Justin S. Spilker, Rachel Bezanson, Katherine A. Suess, Jenny E. Greene, Andy D. Goulding, Elia Cenci, Vincenzo R. D'Onofrio, Robert Feldmann, Mariska Kriek, Anika Kumar, Yuanze Luo, Desika Narayanan, Margaret E. Verrico, Pengpei Zhu

David J. Setton et al 2025 The Astronomical Journal 170 .

  • Provider: AAS Journals

Caption: Figure 5.

Molecular gas mass vs. SFR. As background contours, we show literature star-forming samples: COLDGASS detected (gray), undetected (red; A. Saintonge et al. 2011), and PHIBSS/PHIBSS2 (blue; L. J. Tacconi et al. 2018; J. Freundlich et al. 2019). As green diamonds, we show literature post-starburst samples (S. Belli et al. 2021; C. Woodrum et al. 2022; P.-F. Wu et al. 2023), with SFRs derived from SED fitting that incorporates MIR data. In black, we show SQuIGG﹩\overrightarrow{L}﹩E, with the SFRs measured in K. A. Suess et al. (2022a). Under the assumptions in that fitting (and with αCO = 4.0), the entire SQuIGG﹩\overrightarrow{L}﹩E sample lies below the SFR–﹩{M}_{{{\rm{H}}}_{2}}﹩ relation, suggesting that star formation in SQuIGG﹩\overrightarrow{L}﹩E post-starburst galaxies at fixed ﹩{M}_{{{\rm{H}}}_{2}}﹩ is low relative to typical star-forming galaxies.

Other Images in This Article

Show More

Copyright and Terms & Conditions

Additional terms of reuse