Molecular gas is strongly correlated with star formation on scales from entire galaxies (Kennicutt 1989, Kennicutt 1998, Gao and Solomon 2004, Saintonge et al. 2011a) to kpc and sub-kpc regions (Wong and Blitz 2002, Bigiel et al. 2008, Rahman et al. 2012, Leroy et al. 2013) to individual GMCs (Evans et al. 2009, Heiderman et al. 2010, Lada et al. 2010, Lada et al. 2012). These relations take on different shapes at different scales. Early studies of whole galaxies found a power-law correlation between total gas content (H i plus H2) and star formation rate (SFR) with an index N ~ 1.5 (Kennicutt 1989, Kennicutt 1998). These studies include galaxies that span a very large range of properties, from dwarfs to ultraluminous IR galaxies, so it is possible that the physical underpinnings of this relation are different in different regimes. Transitions with higher critical densities such as HCN(1-0) and higher-J CO lines (Gao and Solomon 2004, Bayet et al. 2009, Juneau et al. 2009, García-Burillo et al. 2012) also show power-law correlations but with smaller indices; the index appears to depend mostly on the line critical density, a result that can be explained through models (Krumholz and Thompson 2007, Narayanan et al. 2008b, Narayanan et al. 2008a).
Within galaxies the star formation rate surface density,
SFR, is
strongly correlated with the surface density
of molecular gas as traced by CO emission and only very weakly, if at
all, related to atomic gas. The strong correlation with H2
persists even in regions where atomic gas dominates the mass budget
(Schruba et
al. 2011,
Bolatto et
al. 2011).
The precise form of the SFR-H2 correlation is a subject of
study, with results spanning the range from super-linear
(Kennicutt
et al. 2007,
Liu et
al. 2011,
Calzetti et
al. 2012)
to approximately linear
(Bigiel et
al. 2008,
Blanc et
al. 2009,
Rahman et
al. 2012,
Leroy et
al. 2013)
to sub-linear
(Shetty et
al. 2013).
Because CO is used to trace H2, the correlation
can be altered by systematic variations in the CO to H2
conversion factor, an effect that may flatten the observed relation
compared to the true one
(Shetty et
al. 2011,
Narayanan
et al. 2011,
Narayanan
et al. 2012).
The SFR-H2 correlation defines a molecular depletion time,
dep(H2) =
M(H2) / SFR, which is the time required to
consume all the H2 at the current SFR.
A linear SFR-H2 correlation implies a constant
dep(H2),
while super-linear (sub-linear) relations yield a time scale
dep(H2)
that decreases (increases) with surface density. In regions where CO
emission is present, the mean depletion time over kpc scales is
dep(H2)
= 2.2 Gyr with ± 0.3 dex
scatter, with some dependence on the local conditions
(Leroy et
al. 2013).
Saintonge
et al. (2011)
find that, for entire galaxies,
dep(H2)
decreases by a factor of ~ 3
over two orders of magnitude increase in the SFR surface.
Leroy et
al. (2013)
show that the kpc-scale measurements within galaxies are consistent with
this trend, but that
dep(H2)
also correlates with the dust-to-gas ratio. For normal galaxies, using a
CO-to-H2 conversion factor that depends on the local
dust-to-gas ratio removes most of the variation in
dep(H2).
On scales of a few hundred parsecs, the scatter in
dep(H2)
rises significantly (e.g.,
Schruba et
al. 2010,
Onodera et
al. 2010)
and the SFR-H2 correlation breaks down. This is partially a
manifestation of the large dispersion in SFR per unit mass in individual
GMCs
(Lada et
al. 2010),
but it is also a consequence of the time scales involved
(Kawamura et
al. 2009,
Kim et
al. 2013).
Technical issues concerning the interpretation of the tracers also
become important on the small scales
(Calzetti et
al. 2012).
On sub-GMC scales there are strong correlations between star formation
and extinction, column density, and volume density. The correlation with
volume density is very close to that observed in ultraluminous IR galaxies
(Wu et
al. 2005).
Some authors have interpreted these data as implying that star formation
only begins above a threshold column density of
H2 ~ 110-130
M
yr-1 or volume density n ~ 104-5
cm-3
(Evans et
al. 2009,
Heiderman
et al. 2010,
Lada et
al. 2010,
Lada et
al. 2012).
However, others argue that the data are equally consistent with a smooth
rise in SFR with volume or surface density, without any particular
threshold value
(Krumholz
and Tan 2007,
Narayanan
et al. 2008b,
Narayanan
et al. 2008a,
Gutermuth
et al. 2011,
Krumholz et
al. 2012,
Burkert and
Hartmann 2013).
2.2. GMCs as a Component of the Interstellar Medium
Molecular clouds are the densest, coldest, highest column density, highest extinction component of the interstellar medium. Their masses are dominated by molecular gas (H2), with a secondary contribution from He (~ 26%), and a varying contribution from H i in a cold envelope (e.g., Fukui and Kawamura 2010) and interclump gas detectable by H i self-absorption (Goldsmith and Li 2005). Most of the molecular mass in galaxies is in the form of molecular clouds, with the possible exception of galaxies with gas surface densities substantially higher than that of the Milky Way, where a substantial diffuse H2 component exists (Papadopoulos et al. 2012b, Papadopoulos et al. 2012a, Pety et al. 2013, Colombo et al. 2013).
Molecular cloud masses range from ~ 102
M for
small clouds at high Galactic latitudes (e.g.,
Magnani et
al. 1985)
and in the outer disk of the Milky Way (e.g.,
Brand and
Wouterloot 1995,
Heyer et
al. 2001)
up to giant ~ 107
M
clouds
in the central molecular zone of the Galaxy
(Oka et
al. 2001).
The measured mass spectrum of GMCs (see Section 2.3)
implies that most of the molecular mass resides in the largest
GMCs. Bulk densities of clouds are log[nH2
/ cm-3] = 2.6 ± 0.3
(Solomon et
al. 1987,
Roman
Duval et al. 2010),
but clouds have inhomogenous density distributions with large contrasts
(Stutzki et
al. 1988).
The ratio of molecular to stellar mass in galaxies shows a
strong trend with galaxy color from high in blue galaxies (10% for
NUV - r ~ 2) to low in red galaxies
(
0.16% for
NUV - r
5)
(Saintonge
et al. 2011a).
The typical molecular to atomic ratio in galaxies where both
H i and H2
are detected is Rmol
≡ MH2 /MHI
≈ 0.3 with scatter of ± 0.4 dex. The large scatter reflects
the fact that the atomic and molecular masses are only weakly
correlated, and in contrast with the molecular gas to stellar mass
fraction, the ratio Rmol shows only weak correlations
with galaxy properties such as color
(Leroy et
al. 2005,
Saintonge
et al. 2011a).
In terms of their respective spatial distributions, in spiral galaxies
H2 is reasonably well described by an exponential profile
with a scale length ℓCO ≈ 0.2
R25, rather smaller than the optical emission
(Young et
al. 1995,
Regan et
al. 2001,
Leroy et
al. 2009,
Schruba et
al. 2011),
where R25 is the 25th magnitude isophotal radius for
the stellar light distribution. In contrast,
H i shows a nearly
flat distribution with typical maximum surface density
HI,max ~ 12
M
pc-2 (similar to the
H i column seen toward
Solar neighborhood clouds,
Lee et
al. 2012).
Galaxy centers are the regions that show the most variability and the
largest departures from these trends
(Regan et
al. 2001,
Bigiel and
Blitz 2012).
At low metallicities the
H i surface density
can be much larger, possibly scaling as
HI,max ~
Z-1
(Fumagalli
et al. 2010,
Bolatto et
al. 2011,
Wong et
al. 2013).
In spiral galaxies the transition between the atomic- and
molecular-dominated regions occurs at R ~ 0.4
R25 (e.g.,
Leroy et
al. 2008).
The CO emission also shows much more structure than the
H i on the small
scales
(Leroy et
al. 2013).
In spirals with well
defined arms (NGC 6946, M 51, NGC 628) the interarm regions contain at
least 30% of the measured CO luminosity
(Foyle et
al. 2010),
but at fixed total gas surface density Rmol is very
similar for arm and interarm regions, suggesting that arms act mostly to
collect gas rather to directly trigger H2 formation
(Foyle et
al. 2010)
(see Figure 1). We discuss the relationship
between
H i and H2
in more detail in Section 3.3.
![]() |
Figure 1. (left) CO J = 1-0 image of M 51 from Koda et al. (2009) showing the largest cloud complexes are distributed in spiral arms, while smaller GMCs lie both in and between spiral features. (right) 3 color image of CO J = 1-0 emission from the Taurus molecular cloud from Narayanan et al. (2008c) illustrating complex gas motions within clouds. Colors represents the CO integrated intensities over VLSR intervals 0-5 (blue), 5-7.5 (green) and 7.5-12 (red) km s-1. |
2.3. Statistical Properties of GMCs
Statistical descriptions of GMC properties have provided insight into the processes that govern their formation and evolution since large surveys first became possible in the 1980s (see Section 1). While contemporary observations are more sensitive and feature better angular resolution and sampling than earlier surveys, identification of clouds within position-position-velocity (PPV) data cubes remains a significant problem. In practice, one defines a cloud as a set of contiguous voxels in a PPV data cube of CO emission above a surface brightness threshold. Once a cloud is defined, one can compute global properties such as size, velocity dispersion, and luminosity (Williams et al. 1994, Rosolowsky and Leroy 2006). While these algorithms have been widely applied, their reliability and completeness are difficult to evaluate (Ballesteros-Paredes and Mac Low 2002, 2009Pineda et al., 2009bKainulainen et al.), particularly for surveys of 12CO and 13CO in the Galactic Plane that are subject to blending of emission from unrelated clouds. The improved resolution of modern surveys helps reduce these problems, but higher surface brightness thresholds are required to separate a feature in velocity-crowded regions. High resolution can also complicate the accounting, as the algorithms may identify cloud substructure as distinct clouds. Moreover, even once a cloud is identified, deriving masses and mass-related quantities from observed CO emission generally requires application of the CO-to-H2 conversion factor or the H2 to 13CO abundance ratio, both of which can vary within and between clouds in response to local conditions of UV irradiance, density, temperature, and metallicity (Bolatto et al. 2013, Ripple et al. 2013). Millimeter wave interferometers can resolve large GMC complexes in nearby galaxies but must also account for missing flux from an extended component of emission.
Despite these observational difficulties, there are some robust
results. Over the mass range M > 104
M where
it can be measured reliably, the cloud mass spectrum is well-fit by a
powerlaw dN/dM ~
M-
(cumulative
distribution function N(> M) ~
M-
+1), with values
< 2
indicating
that most of the mass is in large clouds. For GMCs in the Milky Way,
is
consistently found to be in the range 1.5 to 1.8
(Solomon et
al. 1987,
Kramer et
al. 1998,
Heyer et
al. 2001,
Roman
Duval et al. 2010)
with the higher value likely biased by the inclusion of cloud fragments
identified as distinct clouds. GMCs in the Magellanic Clouds exhibit a
steeper mass function overall and specifically for massive clouds
(Fukui et
al. 2008,
Wong et
al. 2011).
In M 33,
ranges
from 1.6 in the inner regions to 2.3 at larger radii
(Rosolowsky
and Blitz 2005,
Gratier et
al. 2012).
In addition to clouds' masses, we can measure their sizes and thus their
surface densities. The
Solomon et
al. (1987)
catalog of inner Milky Way GMCs, updated to the current Galactic
distance scale, shows a distribution of GMCs surface densities
GMC
≈ 150-70+95
M
pc-2 (±
1
interval) assuming a
fixed CO-to-H2 conversion
factor XCO = 2 × 1020 cm-2
(K km s-1)-1, and including the He mass
(Bolatto et
al. 2013).
Heyer et
al. (2009)
re-observed these clouds in 13CO and found
GMC ~ 40
M
pc-2 over the same cloud areas, but concluded that this is
likely at least a factor of 2 too low due to non-LTE and optical depth
effects.
Heiderman
et al. (2010)
find that
13CO can lead to a factor of 5 underestimate. A reanalysis by
Roman
Duval et al. (2010)
shows
GMC
~ 144 M
pc-2 using the 13CO rather than the
12CO contour to define the area.
Measurements of surface densities in extragalactic GMCs remain
challenging, but with the advent of ALMA the field is likely to evolve
quickly. For a sample of nearby galaxies, many of them dwarfs,
Bolatto et
al. (2008)
find
GMC
≈ 85 M
pc-2. Other recent extragalactic surveys find roughly
comparable results,
GMC ~ 40-170
M
pc-2
(Rebolledo
et al. 2012,
Donovan Meyer
et al. 2013).
GMC surface densities may prove to be a function of environment. The
PAWS survey of M 51 finds a progression in surface density
(Colombo et
al. 2013),
from clouds in the center
(GMC ~ 210
M
pc-2), to clouds in arms
(
GMC ~ 185
M
pc-2), to those in interarm regions
(
GMC ~ 140
M
pc-2).
Fukui et
al. (2008),
Bolatto et
al. (2008),
and
Hughes et
al. (2010)
find that GMCs in the Magellanic Clouds have lower
surface densities than those in the inner Milky Way
(
GMC ~ 50
M
pc-2). Because of the
presence of extended H2 envelopes at low metallicities
(Section 2.6),
however, this may underestimate their true molecular surface density
(e.g.,
Leroy et
al. 2009).
Even more extreme variations in
GMC are
observed near the Galactic Center and in more extreme starburst
environments (see Section 2.7).
In addition to studying the mean surface density of GMCs, observations
within the Galaxy can also probe the distribution of surface densities
within GMCs. For a sample of Solar neighborhood clouds,
Kainulainen
et al. (2009a)
use infrared extinction measurements to determine that PDFs of column
densities are lognormal from 0.5 < AV < 5
(roughly 10-100
M
pc-2), with a power-law tail at high column densities in
actively star-forming clouds. Column density images derived from dust
emission also find such excursions
(Schneider
et al. 2012,
Schneider
et al. 2013).
Lombardi et
al. (2010),
also using infrared extinction techniques, find that, although GMCs
contain a wide range of column densities, the mass M and area
A contained within a specified extinction threshold nevertheless
obey the
Larson
(1981)
M ∝ A relation, which implies constant column density.
Finally, we warn that all column density measurements are subject
to a potential bias. GMCs are identified as contiguous areas with
surface brightness values or extinctions above a threshold typically set
by the sensitivity of the data. Therefore, pixels at or just above this
threshold comprise most of the area of the defined cloud and the
measured cloud surface density is likely biased towards the column
density associated with this threshold limit. Note that there is also a
statistical difference between "mass-weighed" and "area-weighed"
GMC. The
former is the average surface density that
contributes most of the mass, while the latter represents a typical
surface density over most of the cloud extent. Area-weighed
GMC tend
to be lower, and although perhaps less interesting from the viewpoint of
star formation, they are also easier to obtain from observations.
In addition to mass and area, velocity dispersion is the third quantity
that we can measure for a large sample of clouds. It provides a coarse
assessment of the complex motions in GMCs as illustrated in
Figure 1.
Larson
(1981)
identified scaling relationships between velocity dispersion and cloud
size suggestive of a turbulent velocity spectrum, and a constant surface
density for clouds. Using more sensitive surveys of GMCs,
Heyer et
al. (2009)
found a scaling relation that extends the Larson relationships such that
the one-dimensional velocity dispersion
v depends
on the physical radius, R, and the column density
GMC, as
shown in Figure 2.
The points follow the expression,
![]() |
![]() |
Figure 2. The variation of
|
More recent compilations of GMCs in the Milky Way
(Roman
Duval et al. 2010)
have confirmed this result, and studies of Local Group galaxies
(Bolatto et
al. 2008,
Wong et
al. 2011)
have shown that it applies to GMCs outside the Milky Way as well.
Equation 1 is a natural consequence of gravity playing an important role
in setting the characteristic velocity scale in clouds, either through
collapse
(Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 2011b)
or virial equilibrium
(Heyer et
al. 2009).
Unfortunately one expects only factor of
√2 differences in
velocity dispersion between clouds that are in free-fall collapse or
in virial equilibrium
(Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 2011b)
making it extremely difficult to distinguish between these possibilities
using observed scaling relations. Concerning the possibility of
pressure-confined but mildly self-gravitating clouds
(Field et
al. 2011),
Figure 2 shows that the turbulent pressures,
P =
v2,
in observed GMCs are generally larger
than the mean thermal pressure of the diffuse ISM
(Jenkins and
Tripp 2011)
so these structures must be confined by self-gravity.
As with column density, observations within the Galaxy can also probe internal velocity structure. Brunt (2003), Heyer and Brunt (2004), and Brunt et al. (2009) used principal components analysis of GMC velocity fields to investigate the scales on which turbulence in molecular clouds could be driven. They found no break in the velocity dispersion-size relation, and reported that the second principle component has a "dipole-like" structure. Both features suggest that the dominant processes driving GMC velocity structure must operate on scales comparable to or larger than single clouds.
2.4. Dimensionless Numbers: Virial Parameter and Mass to Flux Ratio
The virial theorem describes the large-scale dynamics of gas in GMCs, so ratios of the various terms that appear in it are a useful guide to what forces are important in GMC evolution. Two of these ratios are the virial parameter, which evaluates the importance of internal pressure and bulk motion relative to gravity, and the dimensionless mass to flux ratio, which describes the importance of magnetic fields compared to gravity. Note, however, that neither of these ratios accounts for potentially-important surface terms (e.g., Ballesteros-Paredes et al. 1999).
The virial parameter is defined as
G =
Mvirial / MGMC,
where Mvirial =
5
v2
R / G and
MGMC is the luminous mass of the cloud. For a cloud of
uniform density with negligible surface pressure and magnetic support,
G = 1
corresponds to virial equilibrium and
G = 2 to
being marginally gravitationally bound, although in reality
G > 1 does
not strictly imply expansion, nor does
G <1
strictly imply contraction
(Ballesteros-Paredes 2006).
Surveys of the Galactic Plane and nearby galaxies using 12CO
emission to identify clouds find an excellent, near-linear correlation
between Mvirial and the CO luminosity,
LCO, with a coefficient implying that (for
reasonable CO-to-H2 conversion factors) the typical cloud
virial parameter is unity
(Solomon et
al. 1987,
Fukui et
al. 2008,
Bolatto et
al. 2008,
Wong et
al. 2011).
Virial parameters for clouds exhibit a range of values from
G ~ 0.1 to
G ~ 10, but
typically
G is indeed ~ 1.
Heyer et
al. (2009)
reanalyzed the
Solomon et
al. (1987)
GMC sample using 13CO J = 1-0 emission to derive cloud mass
and found a median
G = 1.9. This
value is still consistent with a median
G = 1, since
excitation and
abundance variations in the survey lead to systematic underestimates of
MGMC. A cloud catalog generated directly from the
13CO emission of the BU-FCRAO Galactic Ring Survey resulted
in a median
G
= 0.5
(Roman
Duval et al. 2010).
Previous surveys
(Dobashi et
al. 1996,
Yonekura et
al. 1997,
Heyer et
al. 2001)
tended to find higher
G for low
mass clouds, possibly a consequence of earlier cloud-finding algorithms
preferentially decomposing single GMCs into smaller fragments
(Bertoldi
and McKee 1992).
The importance of magnetic forces is characterized by the ratio
MGMC / Mcr, where
Mcr =
/
(4
2
G)1/2 and
is the
magnetic flux threading the cloud
(Mouschovias and Spitzer 1976,
Nakano
1978).
If MGMC / Mcr > 1 (the
supercritical case) then the magnetic field is incapable of providing
the requisite force to balance self-gravity, while if
MGMC / Mcr<1 (the subcritical
case) the cloud can be supported against self-gravity by the magnetic
field. Initially subcritical volumes can become supercritical through
ambipolar diffusion
(Mouschovias 1987,
Lizano and Shu
1989).
Evaluating whether a cloud is sub- or supercritical is
challenging. Zeeman measurements of the OH and CN lines offer a direct
measurement of the line of sight component of the magnetic field at
densities ~ 103 and ~ 105 cm-3,
respectively, but statistical corrections are required to account for
projection effects for both the field and the column density
distribution.
Crutcher
(2012)
provides a review of techniques and observational results, and report a
mean value MGMC / Mcr ≈ 2-3,
implying that clouds are generally supercritical, though not by a large
margin.
The natural time unit for GMCs is the free-fall time, which for a medium
of density
is given by
ff =
[3
/ (32
G
)]1/2 = 3.4 (100 /
nH2)1/2 Myr, where
nH2 is the number density of H2
molecules, and the mass per H2 molecule is 3.9 ×
10-24 g for a fully molecular gas of cosmological
composition. This is the timescale on which an object that experiences
no significant forces other than its own gravity will collapse to a
singularity. For an object with
G ≈ 1,
the crossing timescale is
cr = R /
≈
2
ff. It is of
great interest how these
natural timescales compare to cloud lifetimes and depletion times.
Scoville et
al. (1979)
argue that GMCs in the Milky Way are very long-lived (>
108 yr) based on the detection of molecular clouds in
interarm regions, and
Koda et
al. (2009)
apply similar arguments to the H2-rich galaxy M 51. They find
that, while the largest GMC complexes
reside within the arms, smaller (< 104
M)
clouds are found in
the interarm regions, and the molecular fraction is large (> 75%)
throughout the central 8 kpc (see also
Foyle et
al. 2010).
This suggests that massive GMCs are rapidly built-up in the arms from
smaller, pre-existing clouds that survive the transit between spiral
arms. The massive GMCs fragment into the smaller clouds upon exiting the
arms, but have column densities high enough to remain molecular (see
Section 3.4). Since the time between
spiral arm passages is ~ 100 Myr, this implies a similar cloud lifetime
life
100 Myr ≫
ff. Note,
however, this is an argument for the mean lifetime of a H2
molecule, not necessarily for a single cloud. Furthermore, these
arguments do not apply to H2-poor galaxies like the LMC and
M 33.
Kawamura et al.
(2009)
(see also
Fukui et
al. 1999,
Gratier et
al. 2012)
use the NANTEN Survey of 12CO J = 1-0 emission from the LMC,
which is complete for clouds with mass >5 × 104
M, to
identify three distinct cloud types that are linked to specific phases
of cloud evolution. Type I clouds are devoid of massive star formation
and represent the earliest phase. Type II clouds contain compact
H ii regions,
signaling the onset of massive star formation. Type III clouds, the
final stage, harbor developed stellar clusters and
H ii regions. The
number counts of cloud types indicate the relative lifetimes of each
stage, and age-dating the star clusters found in type III clouds then
makes it possible to assign absolute durations of 6, 13, and 7 Myrs for
Types I, II, and III respectively. Thus the cumulative GMC lifetime is
life ~ 25
Myrs. This is still substantially greater than
ff, but by less
so than in M 51.
While lifetime estimates in external galaxies are possible only for
large clouds, in the Solar Neighborhood it is possible to study much
smaller clouds, and to do so using timescales derived from the positions
of individual stars on the HR diagram.
Elmegreen
(2000),
Hartmann et
al. (2001)
and
Ballesteros-Paredes and Hartmann (2007),
examining a sample of Solar Neighborhood GMCs, note that their HR
diagrams are generally devoid of post T-Tauri stars with ages of ~ 10
Myr or more, suggesting this as an upper limit on
life. More
detailed analysis of HR diagrams, or
other techniques for age-dating stars, generally points to age spreads
of at most ~ 3 Myr
(Reggiani et
al. 2011,
Jeffries et
al. 2011).
While the short lifetimes inferred for Galactic clouds might at first
seem inconsistent
with the extragalactic data, it is important to remember that the two
data sets are probing essentially non-overlapping ranges of cloud mass
and length scale. The largest Solar Neighborhood clouds that have been
age-dated via HR diagrams have masses < 104
M (the
entire Orion cloud is more massive than this, but the age spreads
reported in the literature are only for the few thousand
M
central cluster), below the detection threshold of most extragalactic
surveys. Since larger clouds have, on average, lower densities and
longer free-fall timescales, the difference in
life is
much larger than the difference in
life /
ff. Indeed, some
authors argue that
life /
ff may be ~ 10
for Galactic clouds as well as extragalactic ones
(Tan et
al. 2006).
2.6. Star Formation Rates and Efficiencies
We can also measure star formation activity within clouds. We define the
star formation efficiency or yield,
*,
as the instantaneous fraction of a cloud's
mass that has been transformed into stars,
*
= M* / (M* +
Mgas), where M* is the mass
of newborn stars. In an isolated, non-accreting cloud,
*
increases monotonically, but in an
accreting cloud it can decrease as well.
Krumholz and
McKee (2005),
building on classical work by
Zuckerman
and Evans (1974),
argue that a more useful quantity than
* is
the star formation efficiency per free-fall time, defined as
ff =
* /
(Mgas /
ff), where
*
is the instantaneous star formation
rate. This definition can also be phrased in terms of the depletion
timescale introduced above:
ff =
ff /
dep. One virtue
of this definition is that it can be applied at a range of densities
, by computing
ff(
)
then taking Mgas to be the
mass at a density ≥
(Krumholz
and Tan 2007).
As newborn stars form in the densest regions of clouds,
*
can only increase as one increases the density threshold used to define
Mgas. It is in principle possible for
ff to
both increase and decrease, and its behavior as a function of density
encodes important information about how star formation behaves.
Within individual clouds, the best available data on
*
and
ff come from
campaigns that use the Spitzer Space Telescope to obtain a census of
young stellar objects with excess infrared emission, a feature that
persists for 2-3 Myr of pre-main sequence evolution. These are combined
with cloud masses and surface densities measured by millimeter dust
emission or infrared extinction of background stars. For a set of five
star forming regions investigated in the Cores to Disks Spitzer
Legacy program,
Evans et
al. (2009)
found
*
= 0.03-0.06 over entire GMCs, and
*
~ 0.5 considering only dense gas with
n ~ 105 cm-3. On the other hand,
ff
≈ 0.03-0.06 regardless of whether one
considers the dense gas or the diffuse gas, due to a rough cancellation
between the density dependence of Mgas and
ff.
Heiderman et
al. (2010)
obtain comparable values in 15 additional clouds from the Gould's Belt
Survey.
Murray
(2011)
find significantly higher values of
ff =
0.14-0.24 for
the star clusters in the Galaxy that are brightest in WMAP free-free
emission, but this value may be biased high because it is based on the
assumption that the molecular clouds from which those clusters formed
have undergone negligible mass loss despite the clusters'
extreme luminosities
(Feldmann
and Gnedin 2011).
At the scale of the Milky Way as a whole, recent estimates based on a
variety of indicators put the galactic star formation rate at ≈ 2
M
yr-1
(Robitaille and Whitney 2010,
Murray and
Rahman 2010,
Chomiuk and
Povich 2011),
within a factor of ~ 2 of earlier estimates based on ground-based
radio catalogs (e.g.,
McKee and
Williams 1997).
In comparison, the total
molecular mass of the Milky Way is roughly 109
M
(Solomon et
al. 1987),
and this, combined with the typical free-fall time
estimated in the previous section, gives a galaxy-average
ff ~
0.01 (see also
Krumholz and
Tan 2007,
Murray and
Rahman 2010).
For extragalactic sources one can measure
ff by
combining SFR indicators such as
H
, ultraviolet, and
infrared emission with tracers of gas at a variety of densities. As
discussed above, observed H2 depletion times are
dep(H2) ≈ 2 Gyr, whereas
GMC densities of nH ~ 30-1000 cm-3 correspond
to free-fall times of ~ 1-8 Myr, with most of the mass probably closer
to the smaller value, since the mass spectrum of GMCs ensures that most
mass is in large clouds, which tend to have lower densities. Thus
ff ~
0.001-0.003. Observations using tracers of dense gas (n ~
105 cm-3) such as HCN yield
ff ~ 0.01
(Krumholz
and Tan 2007,
García-Burillo et al. 2012);
given the errors, the difference between the HCN and CO values is not
significant. As with the
Evans et
al. (2009)
clouds, higher density regions subtend smaller volumes and comprise
smaller masses.
ff is
nearly constant because Mgas and 1 /
ff both
fall with density at about the same rate.
Figure 3 shows a large sample of observations
compiled by
Krumholz et
al. (2012),
which includes individual Galactic clouds, nearby galaxies, and
high-redshift galaxies, covering a very large range of mean
densities. They find that all of the data are consistent with
ff ~
0.01, albeit with considerable scatter and
systematic uncertainty. Even with the uncertainties, however, it is
clear that
ff ~ 1
is strongly ruled out.
![]() |
Figure 3. SFR per unit area versus gas
column density over free-fall time
(Krumholz
et al. 2012).
Different shapes indicate different data sources, and colors represent
different types of objects: red circles and squares are Milky Way
clouds, black filled triangles and unresolved z = 0 galaxies,
black open triangles are unresolved z = 0 starbursts, blue
filled symbols are unresolved z > 1 disk galaxies, and blue
open symbols are unresolved z > 1 starburst
galaxies. Contours show the distribution of kpc-sized regions within
nearby galaxies. The black line is
|
2.7. GMCs in Varying Galactic Environments
One gains useful insight into GMC physics by studying their properties as a function of environment. Some of the most extreme environments, such as those in starbursts or metal-poor galaxies, also offer unique insights into astrophysics in the primitive universe, and aid in the interpretation of observations of distant sources.
Galactic centers, which feature high metallicity and stellar density,
and often high surface densities of gas and star formation, are one
unusual environment to which we have observational access. The
properties of the bulge, and presence of a bar appear to influence the
amount of H2 in the center
(Fisher et
al. 2013).
Central regions with high
H2 preferentially show reduced
dep(H2) compared to galaxy
averages
(Leroy et
al. 2013),
suggesting that central GMCs convert their gas into stars more
rapidly. Reduced
dep(H2) is correlated
with an increase in CO (2-1) / (1-0) ratios, indicating enhanced
excitation (or lower optical depth). Many galaxy centers also exhibit a
super-exponential increase in CO brightness, and a drop in
CO-to-H2 conversion factor (which reinforces the short
dep(H2) conclusion,
Sandstrom
et al. 2012).
On the other hand, in our own Galactic Center,
Longmore et
al. (2013)
show that there are massive molecular clouds that have surprisingly
little star formation, and depletion times
dep(H2) ~ 1 Gyr comparable to
disk GMCs
(Kruijssen
et al. 2013),
despite volume and column densities orders of magnitude higher (see
Longmore et al. Chapter).
Obtaining similar spatially-resolved data on external galaxies is
challenging.
Rosolowsky
and Blitz (2005)
examined several very large GMCs (M ~ 107
M, R ~
40-180 pc) in M 64. They also find a size-linewidth coefficient
somewhat larger than in the Milky Way disk, and, in 13CO,
high surface densities. Recent multi-wavelength, high-resolution ALMA
observations of the center of the nearby starburst NGC 253 find cloud masses
M ~ 107
M
and sizes
R ~ 30 pc, implying
GMC
103
M
pc-2 (Leroy et al. 2013, in prep.). The cloud
linewidths imply that they are self-gravitating.
The low metallicity environments of dwarf galaxies and outer galaxy disks supply another fruitful laboratory for study of the influence of environmental conditions. Because of their proximity, the Magellanic Clouds provide the best locations to study metal-poor GMCs. Owing to the scarcity of dust at low metallicity (e.g., Draine et al. 2007) the abundances of H2 and CO in the ISM are greatly reduced compared to what would be found under comparable conditions in a higher metallicity galaxy (see the discussion in Section 3.3). As a result, CO emission is faint, only being present in regions of very high column density (e.g., Israel et al. 1993, Bolatto et al. 2013 and references therein). Despite these difficulties, there are a number of studies of low metallicity GMCs. Rubio et al. (1993) reported GMCs in the SMC exhibit sizes, masses, and a size-linewidth relation similar to that in the disk of the Milky Way. However, more recent work suggests that GMCs in the Magellanic Clouds are smaller and have lower masses, brightness temperatures, and surface densities than typical inner Milky Way GMCs, although they are otherwise similar to Milky Way clouds (Fukui et al. 2008, Bolatto et al. 2008, Hughes et al. 2010, Muller et al. 2010, Herrera et al. 2013). Magellanic Cloud GMCs also appear to be surrounded by extended envelopes of CO-faint H2 that are ~ 30% larger than the CO-emitting region (Leroy et al. 2007, Leroy et al. 2009). Despite their CO faintness, though, the SFR-H2 relation appears to be independent of metallicity once the change in the CO-to-H2 conversion factor is removed (Bolatto et al. 2011).