GALAXY CLUSTERS IN THE CFHTLS SARRON F. MARTINET N. ADAMI C. DURRET F. INSTITUT D’ASTROPHYSIQUE DE PARIS (IAP) ARGELANDER-INSTITUT FÜR ASTRONOMIE, BONN LABORATOIRE D’ASTROPHYSIQUE DE MARSEILLE (LAM) INSTITUT D’ASTROPHYSIQUE DE PARIS (IAP) Florian Sarron PhD student IAP (Paris) GALAXY EVOLUTION ACROSS TIME 12-16 JUNE 2017 There is a degeneracy between mass and redshift : only most massive clusters are detected at high redshift. Figure 6 shows the ETGs and LTGs fraction as a function of redshift for different cluster masses. The evolution in redshift for the full mass range is dominated by low mass clusters - the size of our sample enables us to study dependence on both parameters simultaneously. Fraction of ETGs and LTGs 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.2 0.4 0.6 Galaxy type proportion mean cluster redshift all M200 0.2 0.4 0.6 mean cluster redshift 1013.5 < M200 < 1014 Msun 0.2 0.4 0.6 mean cluster redshift 1014 < M200 < 1014.5 Msun 0.2 0.4 0.6 mean cluster redshift M200 > 1014.5 Msun NEXT : BREAKING THE REDSHIFT-MASS DEGENERACY Figure 6 There is some disagreement in the literature concerning the evolution with redshift of the galaxy luminosity function (GLF) in galaxy clusters. It is unclear whether the red sequence (RS) is enriched by efﬁcient quenching of blue late-type galaxies inside the cluster from z~1, or if this RS is built at higher redshift. To explore this issue, we apply our new version of the Adami and MAzure Cluster FInder (AMACFI) to the Canada France Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) W1 ﬁeld. Figure 3 Schechter t parameters evolution for ETGs -1 -0.5 0.3 0.6 α zclus -23 -22.5 0.3 0.6 M* zclus passive evolution - BC03 -1 -0.5 13.5 14 14.5 15 α log(M200/Msun) -23 -22.5 13.5 14 14.5 15 M* log(M200/Msun) RESULT : ETGs GLFs faint end shows a mild decrease with redshift at 4.8 - meaning galaxies in clusters are efﬁciently quenched from z ~ 0.7. From the mass dependance we can infer that quenching is more efﬁcient in denser environments. σ 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.79 ± 0.02 M*early=−22.64 ± 0.07 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 142 clusters at <z>= 0.22 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.80 ± 0.03 M*early=−22.82 ± 0.06 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 264 clusters at <z>= 0.30 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.74 ± 0.03 M*early=−22.78 ± 0.05 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 327 clusters at <z>= 0.40 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.61 ± 0.03 M*early=−22.63 ± 0.05 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 366 clusters at <z>= 0.49 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.55 ± 0.04 M*early=−22.60 ± 0.05 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 370 clusters at <z>= 0.60 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.58 ± 0.05 M*early=−22.69 ± 0.06 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 344 clusters at <z>= 0.68 Figure 5 - Same as Figure 4 for stacks in bins of redshift of cluster GLFs. 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.62 ± 0.06 M*early=−22.76 ± 0.07 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 453 clusters at <M200>= 6.74E+13 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.90 ± 0.07 M*early=−22.79 ± 0.10 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 91 clusters at <M200>= 4.50E+14 1 10 100 1000 10000 −28 −26 −24 −22 −20 −18 −16 αearly=−0.87 ± 0.03 M*early=−22.89 ± 0.05 Galaxies / deg2 Mabs(i) 622 clusters at <M200>= 1.71E+14 Figure 4 - Stacks in bins of mass of cluster GLFs. Best fit of Schechter parameters of ETGs is indicated. Vertical line is the 90% completeness limit of the sample - corresponding to i=23 in apparent magnitude. Composite GLFs of cluster candidates 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.3 0.6 0.9 Completeness zhalo Completeness for M200 > 1014 Msun 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Completeness M200,halo [1014 Msun] Completeness for M200 > 1014 Msun 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 Purity zphot Purity for M200 > 1013 Msun S/N > 3 S/N > 4 S/N > 5 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 log(M200/Msun) zphot SN > 4 13.0 13.5 14.0 14.5 15.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 We apply AMACFI to