ESTIMATING THE STAR FORMATION RATE AT 1 kpc SCALES IN NEARBY GALAXIES

By A. Leroy, F. Bigiel, W. D. de Blok, S. Boissier, A. Bolatto, E. Brinks, B. Madore, J. Muńoz-Mateos, E. Murphy, K. Sandstrom and 2 more. 2012

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Using combinations of Hα, ultraviolet (UV), and infrared (IR) emission, we estimate the star formation rate (SFR) surface density, ΣSFR, at 1 kpc resolution for 30 disk galaxies that are targets of the IRAM HERACLES CO survey. We present a new physically motivated IR spectral-energy-distribution-based approach to account for possible contributions to 24 μm emission not associated with recent star formation. Considering a variety of “reference” SFRs from the literature, we revisit the calibration of the 24 μm term in hybrid (UV+IR or Hα+IR) tracers. We show that the overall calibration of this term remains uncertain at the factor of two level because of the lack of wide-field, robust reference SFR estimates. Within this uncertainty, published calibrations represent a reasonable starting point for 1 kpc-wide areas of star-forming disk galaxies, but we re-derive and refine the calibration of the IR term in these tracers to match our resolution and approach to 24 μm emission. We compare a large suite of ΣSFR estimates and find that above ΣSFR ∼ 10−3 M☉ yr−1 kpc−2 the systematic differences among tracers are less than a factor of two across two orders of magnitude dynamic range. We caution that methodology and data both become serious issues below this level. We note from simple model considerations that when focusing on a part of a galaxy dominated by a single stellar population, the intrinsic uncertainty in Hα- and FUV-based SFRs is ∼0.3 and ∼0.5 dex.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Instrumentation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d3672feffa885ffb8719f7defe1290a0dcac3ba6

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

THE PdBI ARCSECOND WHIRLPOOL SURVEY (PAWS): ENVIRONMENTAL DEPENDENCE OF GIANT MOLECULAR CLOUD PROPERTIES IN M51 (2014, background): “Bresolin et al. (2004), and Moustakas et al. (2010) both found a metallicity close to solar with only a shallow radial gradient of −(0.02 ± 0.01) dex kpc−1, so we do not expect metallicity-dependent variations in the conversion factor across the PAWS FoV (see, e.g., Leroy et al. 2011, 2012).”
The lifecycle of molecular clouds in nearby star-forming disc galaxies (2019, background): “10 Myr; e.g. Leroy et al. 2012; Haydon et al. 2018) with the best coverage across our sample, while minimising contamination from other objects.”
THE PdBI ARCSECOND WHIRLPOOL SURVEY (PAWS). I. A CLOUD-SCALE/MULTI-WAVELENGTH VIEW OF THE INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM IN A GRAND-DESIGN SPIRAL GALAXY (2013, background): “6 middle right panel in second row) can be attributed to diffuse 24µm ’cirrus’ emission (for a detailed discussion see Section 5 of Leroy et al. 2012) that is caused by heating from the ISRF.”
LOW CO LUMINOSITIES IN DWARF GALAXIES (2012, methodology): “We apply some processing to the FUV and 24µm maps (i.e., mask foreground stars and flatten background) as described in Leroy et al. (2012).”
Physical Processes in the Interstellar Medium (2014, background): “While Leroy et al. (2008, 2012, 2013) argue in favor of a more or less universal gas depletion time of ∼ 2Gyr, Shetty et al. (2013) and Shetty et al. (2014) find that the depletion time varies from galaxy to galaxy, and as a general trend, increases with surface density.”
Three-phase Interstellar Medium in Galaxies Resolving Evolution with Star Formation and Supernova Feedback (TIGRESS): Algorithms, Fiducial Model, and Convergence (2016, methodology): “…choose three different bins, =t 10bin , 40, and 100Myr, to indicate the way of SFR surface density would vary when traced by different diagnostics of young stars (e.g., the simple burst model adopted in Leroy et al. 2012 would have 95% of Hα and FUV emitted within 4.7Myr and 65Myr, respectively).”
An uncertainty principle for star formation - I. Why galactic star formation relations break down below a certain spatial scale (2014, background): “Reasonable values areσevo,1g = σevo,1s = 0.3 dex for the luminosity evolution of a single gaseous or stellar peak, respectively (cf. Leroy et al. 2012), andσMF,1 ∼ 0.8 dex, which is roughly appropriate for a power law mass spectrum with a slope of −2 over a factor of 40 in mass. Finally, the…”
THE CO-TO-H2 CONVERSION FACTOR AND DUST-TO-GAS RATIO ON KILOPARSEC SCALES IN NEARBY GALAXIES (2012, methodology): “Star Formation Rate and Stellar Mass Surface Density Maps The star formation rate (SFR) surface densities (ΣSFR) are calculated from Hα and 24 µm maps using the Hα maps and procedure described in Leroy et al. (2012).”
A z = 0 Multiwavelength Galaxy Synthesis. I. A WISE and GALEX Atlas of Local Galaxies (2019, methodology): “Also see Leroy et al. (2012) for an extensive discussion.”