Stellar population analysis of MaNGA early-type galaxies: IMF dependence and systematic effects

We study systematics associated with estimating simple stellar population (SSP) parameters – age, metallicity [M/H], α-enhancement [α/Fe], and initial mass function (IMF) shape – and associated M*/L gradients, of elliptical slow rotators (E-SRs), fast rotators (E-FRs), and S0s from stacked spectra o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Bernardi, Mariangela, Domínguez Sánchez, Helena, Sheth, Ravi K., Brownstein, Joel R., Lane, Richard R.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2023
País:España
Institución:Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Repositorio:DIGITAL.CSIC. Repositorio Institucional del CSIC
OAI Identifier:oai:digital.csic.es:10261/337466
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10261/337466
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Galaxies: fundamental parameters
Galaxies: elliptical and lenticular
cD
Galaxies: structure
Descripción
Sumario:We study systematics associated with estimating simple stellar population (SSP) parameters – age, metallicity [M/H], α-enhancement [α/Fe], and initial mass function (IMF) shape – and associated M*/L gradients, of elliptical slow rotators (E-SRs), fast rotators (E-FRs), and S0s from stacked spectra of galaxies in the MaNGA survey. These systematics arise from (i) how one normalizes the spectra when stacking; (ii) having to subtract emission before estimating absorption line strengths; (iii) the decision to fit the whole spectrum or just a few absorption lines; (iv) SSP model differences (e.g. isochrones, enrichment, IMF). The MILES+Padova SSP models, fit to the Hβ, 〈Fe〉, TiO2SDSS, and [MgFe] Lick indices in the stacks, indicate that out to the half-light radius Re: (a) ages are younger and [α/Fe] values are lower in the central regions but the opposite is true of [M/H]; (b) the IMF is more bottom-heavy in the center, but is close to Kroupa beyond about Re/2; (c) this makes M*/L about 2 × larger in the central regions than beyond Re/2. While the models of Conroy et al. return similar [M/H] and [α/Fe] profiles, the age and (hence) M*/L profiles can differ significantly even for solar abundances and a Kroupa IMF; different responses to non-solar abundances and IMF parametrization further compound these differences. There are clear (model independent) differences between E-SRs, E-FRs, and S0s: younger ages and less enhanced [α/Fe] values suggest that E-FRs and S0s are not SSPs, but relaxing this assumption is unlikely to change their inferred M*/L gradients significantly.