4.7 Article

STAR FORMATION LAWS: THE EFFECTS OF GAS CLOUD SAMPLING

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 752, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/752/2/98

关键词

galaxies: ISM; ISM: structure; stars: formation

资金

  1. NASA ADP [NNX10AD08G]
  2. NASA [135772, NNX10AD08G] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent observational results indicate that the functional shape of the spatially resolved star formation-molecular gas density relation depends on the spatial scale considered. These results may indicate a fundamental role of sampling effects on scales that are typically only a few times larger than those of the largest molecular clouds. To investigate the impact of this effect, we construct simple models for the distribution of molecular clouds in a typical star-forming spiral galaxy and, assuming a power-law relation between star formation rate (SFR) and cloud mass, explore a range of input parameters. We confirm that the slope and the scatter of the simulated SFR-molecular gas surface density relation depend on the size of the sub-galactic region considered, due to stochastic sampling of the molecular cloud mass function, and the effect is larger for steeper relations between SFR and molecular gas. There is a general trend for all slope values to tend to similar to unity for region sizes larger than 1-2 kpc, irrespective of the input SFR-cloud relation. The region size of 1-2 kpc corresponds to the area where the cloud mass function becomes fully sampled. We quantify the effects of selection biases in data tracing the SFR, either as thresholds (i.e., clouds smaller than a given mass value do not form stars) or as backgrounds (e.g., diffuse emission unrelated to current star formation is counted toward the SFR). Apparently discordant observational results are brought into agreement via this simple model, and the comparison of our simulations with data for a few galaxies supports a steep (>1) power-law index between SFR and molecular gas.

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

4.7
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