Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T18:44:15.348Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Models of stellar population at high redshift, as constrainedby PN yields and luminosity function

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2016

C. Maraston
C. Maraston*
Affiliation:
Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, University of Portsmouth, PO13FX, Portsmouth, United Kingdom email: claudia.maraston@port.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The stellar phase of Thermally-Pulsating Asymptotic giant branch is the last major evolutionary stage of intermediate-mass stars which afterwards evolve into planetary nebulae. The TP-AGB phase is affected by mass-loss and instabilities which notoriously make its theoretical modelling uncertain. This review focuses on the effects such modelling has on stellar population models for galaxies, with particular focus on the high-z Universe where galaxies are young and contain a large number of short-living TP-AGB stars. I shall present the models, discuss how different prescriptions for the treatment of the TP-AGB affect the theoretical integrated spectral energy distribution and how these compare to galaxy data, and discuss implications for the PN nebulae luminosity function stemming from the various assumptions. Finally I shall discuss the inclusion of hot evolved stars on stellar population models and how they compare to data for old galaxies at our present time.

Keywords

stars: AGB and post-AGBstars: carbongalaxies: high-redshiftgalaxies: evolution
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 11 , General Assembly A29B: Astronomy in Focus , August 2015 , pp. 26 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2016 

References

Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capozzi, D. et al. 2015, MNRAS, in press Google Scholar
Cid-Fernandes, A. et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687 Google Scholar
Cimatti, A. et al. 2008, A&A, 482, 21 Google Scholar
Conroy, C., Gunn, J. 2010, ApJ, 712, 883 Google Scholar
Greggio, L. & Renzini, A. 1990, ApJ, 364, 35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriek, M., et al. 2010, ApJ, 722, L64 Google Scholar
Yan, R. & Blanton, M. 2012, ApJ, 747, 61 Google Scholar
Lancón, A. & Mouhcine, M. 2000, A&A, 393, 167 Google Scholar
Maraston, C. 1998, MNRAS, 362, 799 Google Scholar
Maraston, C. 2005, MNRAS, 362, 799 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maraston, C. & Thomas, D. 2000, ApJ, 541, 126 Google Scholar
Maraston, C., et al. 2006, ApJ, 652, 85 Google Scholar
Noëll, N. et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 58 Google Scholar
Renzini, A. & Fusi Pecci, F. 1989, ARA&A, 26, 199 Google Scholar
Renzini, A. & Voli, R. 1981, A&A, 94, 165 Google Scholar
Stanghellini, L. et al. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1669 Google Scholar
Tinsley, B. M. 1972, A&A, 20, 383 Google Scholar
van der Wel, et al. 2005, ApJ, 631, 145 Google Scholar