4.5 Review Book Chapter

The Evolution of the Star-Forming Interstellar Medium Across Cosmic Time

期刊

出版社

ANNUAL REVIEWS
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082812-141034

关键词

galaxy formation; galaxy evolution; molecular gas; interstellar molecules; star formation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past decade, increasingly robust estimates of the dense molecular gas content in galaxy populations between redshift z = 0 and the peak of cosmic galaxy/star formation (z similar to 1-3) have become available. This rapid progress has been possible due to the advent of powerful ground- and spacebased telescopes for the combined study of several millimeter to far-IR, line or continuum tracers of the molecular gas and dust components. The main conclusions of this review are as follows: Star-forming galaxies contained much more molecular gas at earlier cosmic epochs than at the present time. The galaxy-integrated depletion timescale for converting the gas into stars depends primarily on z or Hubble time and, at a given z, on the vertical location of a galaxy along the star-formation rate versus stellar mass main sequence (MS) correlation. Global rates of galaxy gas accretion primarily control the evolution of the cold molecular gas content and star-formation rates of the dominant MS galaxy population, which in turn vary with cosmological expansion. Another key driver may be global disk fragmentation in highz, gas-rich galaxies, which ties local free-fall timescales to galactic orbital times and leads to rapid radial matter transport and bulge growth. The low star-formation efficiency inside molecular clouds is plausibly set by supersonic streaming motions and internal turbulence, which in turn may be driven by conversion of gravitational energy at high z and/or by local feedback from massive stars at low z. A simple gas regulator model is remarkably successful in predicting the combined evolution of molecular gas fractions, star-formation rates, galactic winds, and gas-phase metallicities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据