this is for holding javascript data
Andrew Wetzel edited summary_discussion.tex
about 9 years ago
Commit id: 0c785851027b0cb00268a4d739b42d2dac7c4eec
deletions | additions
diff --git a/summary_discussion.tex b/summary_discussion.tex
index f4bd5ed..2fb52af 100644
--- a/summary_discussion.tex
+++ b/summary_discussion.tex
...
At $\mstar\gtrsim10^9\msun$, the long timescales suggests that satellite quenching is caused by gas depletion in the absence of cosmic accretion, via the stripping of extended gas around the satellite, after infall (``strangulation'').
This scenario also can explain the decline of the quenching timescale with increasing $\mstar$, because higher-$\mstar$ (non-satellite) galaxies generally have lower $\mgas/\mstar$ \citep[in either cold atomic or molecular gas, e.g.,][Bradford et al., submitted]{Schiminovich2010, Huang2012, Boselli2014} and thus shorter gas depletion timescales in the absence of accretion.
Conversely,
at $\mstar\sim10^9\msun$, (non-satellite) galaxies
at $\mstar\sim10^9\msun$ have $\mgas/\mstar\approx1$, with gas depletion timescales comparable to a Hubble time.
Thus, satellite quenching timescales at $\mstar\gtrsim10^9\msun$ do not necessarily \emph{require} strong environmental processes beyond truncated gas accretion \citep[see also discussions in][]{Wetzel2013, Wheeler2014, McGee2014}.
However, strangulation cannot explain the rollover in satellite quenching times at $\mstar\lesssim10^9\msun$, because the gas-rich dwarf galaxies of the LG also have $\mgas\gtrsim\mstar$ \citep{GrcevichPutman2009} and thus contain enough cold gas to fuel star formation for a Hubble time even absent accretion.