Star cluster formation and evolution in nearby starburst galaxies – II. Initial conditions

By Richard de Grijs, P. Anders, N. Bastian, R. Lynds, H. Lamers, E. O'Neil, J. I. O. Astronomy, Cambridge, UK University Observatory, Goettingen and 5 more. 2003

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

We use the ages, masses and metallicities of the rich young star cluster systems in the nearby starburst galaxies NGC 3310 and NGC 6745 to derive their cluster formation histories and subsequent evolution. We further expand our analysis of the systematic uncertainties involved in the use of broad-band observations to derive these parameters (Paper I) by examining the effects of a priori assumptions on the individual cluster metallicities. The age (and metallicity) distributions of both the clusters in the circumnuclear ring in NGC 3310 and of those outside the ring are statistically indistinguishable, but there is a clear and significant excess of higher-mass clusters in the ring compared to the non-ring cluster sample; it is likely that the physical conditions in the starburst ring may be conducive for the formation of higher-mass star clusters, on average, than in the relatively more quiescent environment of the main galactic disc. For the NGC 6745 cluster system we derive a median age of � 10 Myr. NGC 6745 contains a significant population of high-mass “super star clusters”, with masses in the range 6.5 . log(Mcl/M⊙) . 8.0. This detection supports the scenario that such objects form preferentially in the extreme environments of interacting galaxies. The age of the cluster populations in both NGC 3310 and NGC 6745 is significantly lower than their respective characteristic cluster disruption time-scales, respectively log(t dis /yr) = 8.05 and 7.75, for 10 4 M⊙ clusters. This allows us to obtain an independent estimate of the initial cluster mass function slope, � = 2.04(±0.23) +0.13 −0.43 for NGC 3310, and 1.96(±0.15) ± 0.19 for NGC 6745, respectively, for masses Mcl & 10 5 M⊙ and Mcl & 4 × 10 5 M⊙. These mass function slopes are consistent with those of other

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4128ee253971ef958e8abcd2954059bfbb64c156

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Instrumentation

Citations in the corpus

Probing the role of the galactic environment in the formation of stellar clusters, using M83 as a test bench (2015, unknown): “…of an initial cluster mass and luminosity function (ICMF and ICLF, respectively) being described with good approximation by a single power-law slope of index close to −2 (e.g., ⋆ E-mail: adamo@astro.su.se Bik et al. 2003; de Grijs et al. 2003; Whitmore et al. 2007, 2014; Chandar et al. 2014).”
An analytical description of the disruption of star clusters in tidal fields with an application to Galactic open clusters (2005, background): “Suppose that the CIMF is a power law with a slope −α = −2 (Zhang & Fall 1999; Larsen 2002; Bik et al. 2003; de Grijs et al. 2003) in the range of Mmin < Mcl < Mmax, Mmin ≈ 10 2M⊙ and Mmax ≈ 10 7M⊙, then the number of clusters with initial mass Mi formed at time t will be N(Mi, t) = S(t) ( Mi…”
A Universal Stellar Initial Mass Function? A critical look at variations in extreme environments (2010, background): “Pflamm-Altenburg et al. (2007) and Weidner & Kroupa (2006) adopt β = 2.2, whereas direct measurements of the cluster mass function are generally shallower, having β = 2.0 (e.g. de Grijs et al. 2003).”
The mass function of young star clusters in spiral galaxies (2008, background): “In the small number of cases where MFs have been determined, they are generally found to be consistent with power-laws dN/dM ∝ Mα with a slope α ≈ −2 (Bik et al. 2003; de Grijs et al. 2003; McCrady & Graham 2007; Zhang & Fall 1999; Dowell et al. 2008).”
Disruption time scales of star clusters in different galaxies (2004, methodology): “In the determination of γ we adopted a cluster IMF with α = 2.0 (Zhang & Fall 1999, Bik et al. 2002, de Grijs et al. 2003).”
The big problems in star formation: The star formation rate, stellar clustering, and the initial mass function (2014, background): “…2009; Chandar et al. 2010a,b, 2011) while others argue for little or no cluster disruption, but that only a small number of stars are formed in clusters in the first place (Boutloukos & Lamers 2003; de Grijs et al. 2003b; Gieles et al. 2007; Bastian et al. 2011, 2012b,a; Silva-Villa et al. 2013).”
Formation of Globular Clusters in Hierarchical Cosmology (2003, result): “The range of slopes derived in our model is in close agreement with observations (Elmegreen & Efremov 1997; Zhang & Fall 1999; de Grijs et al. 2003; Anders et al. 2004).”
TOWARD A COMPLETE ACCOUNTING OF ENERGY AND MOMENTUM FROM STELLAR FEEDBACK IN GALAXY FORMATION SIMULATIONS (2012, background): “The mass function of young star clusters can also be approximated by the Schechter form (Zhang & Fall 1999; de Grijs et al. 2003; Bik et al. 2003; Cresci et al. 2005; McCrady & Graham 2007b, see Portegies Zwart et al. 2010 for a review).”
The SILCC project - III. Regulation of star formation and outflows by stellar winds and supernovae (2016, result): “We note that our result of an approximately lognormal cluster mass function is not in disagreement with the observationally established power-law mass distribution with a slope of −2 (de Grijs et al. 2003; Gieles et al. 2006).”
Star Cluster Demographics. I. A General Framework and Application to the Antennae Galaxies (2006, background): “10 of Bastian et al. 2005; M83, Harris et al. 2001; LMC, Hunter et al. 2003; NGC 6745, de Grijs et al. 2003a; M51 and M101, R. Chandar &B. C.Whitmore 2007, in preparation;M33, Chandar et al. 1999a, 1999b; SMC, Rafelski & Zaritsky 2005), the observational data almost universally show that the…”
Gas expulsion and the destruction of massive young clusters (2006, unknown): “SSCs are found in merging and interacting galaxies such as NGC 7252 (Miller et al. 1997) and NGC 6745 (de Grijs et al. 2003),1 as well as the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) (Elson, Fall & Freeman 1989; Elson 1991; Mackey & Gilmore 2003), and even within our own Galaxy (especially Wd 1, see Clark et…”
On the star formation rate – brightest cluster relation: estimating the peak star formation rate in post-merger galaxies (2008, background): “This is significantly steeper than that derived from direct measurements of the mass/luminosity function of galaxies, namely α = 2.0 ± 0.1 (e.g. de Grijs et al. 2003).”