Does the fundamental metallicity relation evolve with redshift? – II. The evolution in normalization of the mass–metallicity relation

ABSTRACT The metal content of galaxies is a direct probe of the baryon cycle. A hallmark example is the relationship between a galaxy’s stellar mass, star formation rate (SFR), and gas-phase metallicity: the fundamental metallicity relation (FMR). While low-redshift ($z\lesssim 4$) observational studies suggest that the FMR is redshift-invariant, recent high-zJWST data indicate deviations from the FMR established at low-z. In this study, we utilize the FMR to predict the evolution of the normalization of the mass–metallicity relation (MZR) using the cosmological simulations Illustris, IllustrisTNG, EAGLE, and SIMBA. Our findings demonstrate that a $z = 0$ calibrated FMR struggles to predict the evolution in the MZR of each simulation. To quantify the divergence of the predictions, we introduce the concepts of a ‘static’ FMR, where the role of the SFR in setting the normalization of the MZR does not change with redshift, and a ‘dynamic’ FMR, where the role of SFR evolves over time. We find static FMRs in SIMBA and dynamic FMRs in Illustris, IllustrisTNG, and EAGLE. We suggest that the differences between these models likely points to the subtle differences in the implementation of the baryon cycle. Moreover, we echo recent JWST results at $z \gt 4$ by finding significant offsets from the FMR in IllustrisTNG and EAGLE, suggesting that the observed FMR may have a similar dynamic trend as these simulations. Overall, our findings imply that the current FMR framework neglects important time variations of these simulations’ baryon cycles.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2024-11-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae2587
Citations
10
Primary Topic
Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.32

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does the fundamental metallicity relation evolve with redshift? – II. The evolution in normalization of the mass–metallicity relation

Qianhui Chen, Lisa J. Kewley, Henry R. M. Zovaro, Ruby J. Wright et al.
10 citations
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
3.32
article

Does the fundamental metallicity relation evolve with redshift? – II. The evolution in normalization of the mass–metallicity relation

Qianhui Chen, Lisa J. Kewley, Henry R. M. Zovaro, Ruby J. Wright, Sara L. Ellison, Kathryn Grasha, Dhruv T. Zimmerman, Erica J. Nelson, Z. S. Hemler, Lars Hernquist, Paul Torrey, Alex M. Garcia, Ryan L. Sanders
article en
10 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT The metal content of galaxies is a direct probe of the baryon cycle. A hallmark example is the relationship between a galaxy’s stellar mass, star formation rate (SFR), and gas-phase metallicity: the fundamental metallicity relation (FMR). While low-redshift ($z\lesssim 4$) observational studies suggest that the FMR is redshift-invariant, recent high-zJWST data indicate deviations from the FMR established at low-z. In this study, we utilize the FMR to predict the evolution of the normalization of the mass–metallicity relation (MZR) using the cosmological simulations Illustris, IllustrisTNG, EAGLE, and SIMBA. Our findings demonstrate that a $z = 0$ calibrated FMR struggles to predict the evolution in the MZR of each simulation. To quantify the divergence of the predictions, we introduce the concepts of a ‘static’ FMR, where the role of the SFR in setting the normalization of the MZR does not change with redshift, and a ‘dynamic’ FMR, where the role of SFR evolves over time. We find static FMRs in SIMBA and dynamic FMRs in Illustris, IllustrisTNG, and EAGLE. We suggest that the differences between these models likely points to the subtle differences in the implementation of the baryon cycle. Moreover, we echo recent JWST results at $z \gt 4$ by finding significant offsets from the FMR in IllustrisTNG and EAGLE, suggesting that the observed FMR may have a similar dynamic trend as these simulations. Overall, our findings imply that the current FMR framework neglects important time variations of these simulations’ baryon cycles.

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietyVol. 536(1)
Australian National University (AU), University of Helsinki (FI), University of Kentucky (US), University of Colorado Boulder (US), Princeton University (US), University of Victoria (CA), Helsinki Institute of Physics (FI), Mount Stromlo Observatory (AU), University of Florida (US), ASTRO-3D (AU), Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian (US), ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (AU), University of Virginia (US)
National Science Foundation, Australian Government, Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBL, Australian Research Council, H2020 European Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
3.32
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.