Erratum to: A&A 524, A6 (2010), DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014703

© ESO, 2016

The paper “The fundamental plane of EDisCS galaxies. The effect of size evolution” was published in A&A, 524, A6. We discovered a mistake in Eqs. (7) and (10), the corrected version of which read:(7)and(10)while Saglia et al. (2010) had instead of of. The mistake propagates to the 6th, 7th and 8th column of Table 8, to the 4th column of Table 9 and to the triangles pointing upwards in Fig. 25. Also, in these tables and figure the value β₀ = 0.3 was used, instead of the correct β₀ = 0.33.

Here we provide a revised version of Tables 8, 9 and Fig. 25. As a result, the reduction in the luminosity evolution due to the effects of the size and velocity dispersion evolution is smaller than claimed in Saglia et al. (2010). The statements that need revision are the following.

In the Abstract, the statement:

For stellar masses, the luminosity evolution is reduced to L_B ∝ (1 + z)^1.35 for cluster galaxies and L_B ∝ (1 + z)^1.98 for field galaxies.

should read:

For stellar masses, the maximum reduction of the inferred luminosity evolution is by −0.38 units, from L_B ∝ (1 + z)^1.61 to L_B ∝ (1 + z)^1.23 for cluster galaxies, and from L_B ∝ (1 + z)^2.27 to L_B ∝ (1 + z)^1.89 for field galaxies.

Moreover, the final statement:

Taking into account the size and velocity dispersion evolution quoted above pushes all formation ages upwards by 1 to 4 Gyr.

should read:

Taking into account the size and velocity dispersion evolution quoted above pushes all formation ages upwards byup to 2 Gyr.

In Sect. 4.1, the statement:

Using ν = −0.5 , μ = + 0.1 , the change in the slope of the luminosity evolution Δlog L = τlog (1 + z) (see Eq. ( 1 )) is ≈ −0.5 units.

should read:

Using ν = −0.5, μ = + 0.1, the change in the slope of the luminosity evolution Δlog L = τlog (1 + z) (see Eq. (1)) is ≈-0.25 units.

In Sect. 4.2, the statement:

Table 9 lists the changes in the slope

should read:

Table 9 lists the changes in the slope

In the same section the statement:

obtaining Δτ = −0.39 . This implies that the luminosity evolution inferred from the ZP evolution of the EDisCS clusters without selection weighting ( L ~ (1 + z)^1.61 , see Table 5) would reduce to L ~ (1 + z)^1.22 .

should read:

obtaining Δτ = + 0.07. This implies that the luminosity evolution inferred from the ZP evolution of the EDisCS clusters without selection weighting (L ~ (1 + z)^1.61, see Table 5) becomes L ~ (1 + z)^1.68.

The final statement of the section:

... reduce the predicted luminosity evolution with redshift drastically. In contrast, by taking into account the progenitor bias (rows six to nine of Table 9), the correction Δτ to the redshift slope of the luminosity evolution inferred from the FP is far smaller.

should read:

... change the predicted luminosity evolution samewhat. The same applies by taking into account the progenitor bias (rows six to nine of Table 9).

In Sect. 4.4, the statement:

(1) minimal evolution, using Δτ = −0.7 ( M _∗ ,case 6+12, of Table 7) and φ = 0 ;

Fig. 25 Ages of cluster (top) and field (bottom) galaxies at low (z< 0.5, left), medium (0.5 <z< 0.7, middle), and high (z> 0.7, right) redshifts as a function of dynamical mass. The circles show the ages as derived from the bare FP zero point evolution. The filled triangles pointing upwards take into account size evolution at constant M∗, case 2+10 (see Table 9);the open triangles pointing upwards show the (wrong) values presented in Fig. 25 of Saglia et al. (2010) for comparison. The triangles pointing downwards take into account the progenitor bias of van Dokkum & Franx (2001). The median redshifts are given and the corresponding ages of the Universe are shown by the dotted lines.

Open with DEXTER

should read:

(1) minimal luminosity evolution, using Δτ =-0.38 (M_∗,case 2+10, of Tables 7 and 9) and φ = 0;

Moreover, the statement:

Taking into account the size and velocity dispersion evolution considered above in the case 6+12 pushes all formation ages upwards by 1 to 4 Gyr.

should read:

Taking into account the size and velocity dispersion evolution considered above in the case M_∗, 2+10 of Tables 7 and 9 pushes all formation ages upwards byup to 2 Gyr.

In the conclusions the statement:

The corrections computed at constant dynamical masses with a progenitor bias correction almost cancel out

should read:

The corrections computed at constant dynamical masseswithout a progenitor bias correction almost cancel out

The statement:

at constant stellar masses they reduce the slope of the (1 + z) dependence of luminosity by −0.6 units (case 5+11 of Table 7).

should read:

at constant stellar masses they reduce the slope of the (1 + z) dependence of luminosity by −0.38 units (case 2+10 of Table 7).

Finally, the statement:

Fitting directly the luminosity-mass relation, we derived a luminosity evolution that agrees with the one derived from the FP analysis and does not allow for large size and velocity dispersion corrections such as those derived without taking into account the progenitor bias, where a reduction of the slope of the (1 + z) dependence of luminosity by −0.8 is derived at constant M _∗ (case 1+9 of Table 7).

should read:

Fitting directly the luminosity-mass relation, we derived a luminosity evolution that agrees with the one derived from the FP analysis and does not allow for large size and velocity dispersion corrections, as indeed it is always the case.

Acknowledgments

R.P.S. thanks Alessandra Beifiori for pointing out the mistake in Eqs. (7) and (10).

All Tables

All Figures

	Fig. 25 Ages of cluster (top) and field (bottom) galaxies at low (z< 0.5, left), medium (0.5 <z< 0.7, middle), and high (z> 0.7, right) redshifts as a function of dynamical mass. The circles show the ages as derived from the bare FP zero point evolution. The filled triangles pointing upwards take into account size evolution at constant M∗, case 2+10 (see Table 9);the open triangles pointing upwards show the (wrong) values presented in Fig. 25 of Saglia et al. (2010) for comparison. The triangles pointing downwards take into account the progenitor bias of van Dokkum & Franx (2001). The median redshifts are given and the corresponding ages of the Universe are shown by the dotted lines.
Open with DEXTER
In the text