Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 146 references

How Galactic Environment affects the Dynamical State of Molecular Clouds and their Star Formation Efficiency

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Molecular clouds are in pressure-balanced virial equilibrium set by their host galaxy, with star formation efficiencies that vary by two orders of magnitude across environments.

desk verdict A candid, wide-ranging synthesis that makes the case for pressure-balanced virial equilibrium across eight galaxies, with a load-bearing external-pressure prescription the authors themselves admit is uncertain by factors of a few. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04306 v1 pith:XTONG6YA submitted 2019-08-12 astro-ph.GA

Andreas Schruba , J. M. Diederik Kruijssen , Adam K. Leroy This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords molecularcloudsvirialequilibriumexternalpressurestarformationefficiencygalacticenvironmentinterstellarmediumturbulencenearbygalaxies
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Molecular clouds, the sites of star formation, have long been treated as self-gravitating objects in virial equilibrium. This paper synthesizes cloud and host-galaxy measurements for the Milky Way and seven nearby galaxies and argues that the dynamical state of a cloud is set by its environment: clouds sit in virial equilibrium only when the confining pressure of the ambient interstellar medium is included. The observed virial parameter tracks the pressure-equilibrium expectation with a median ratio of about 0.83 and scatter of about 0.3 dex, splitting into self-gravitating clouds in high-pressure regions and pressure-confined clouds in low-pressure regions. The star formation efficiency per free-fall time is low, about 0.1%–1%, and varies by two orders of magnitude with environment; turbulence-regulated star formation models overpredict efficiencies in high-pressure environments. If correct, these results mean environment, not cloud-internal turbulence alone, controls both cloud dynamics and star formation efficiency.

What carries the argument

The central object is the virial theorem for a cloud embedded in an external medium, expressed through the dimensionless virial parameter $\alpha_{\rm vir}=2T/|W|=P_{\rm int}/P_{\rm self}$. The expected value for a cloud in pressure equilibrium is $\alpha_{\rm vir,theo}=1+P_{\rm ext}/P_{\rm self}$, with the self-gravitational pressure given by $P_{\rm self}=(\pi/2)G\Sigma^2$ and the external pressure estimated from vertical hydrostatic equilibrium of the diffuse ISM in the combined gas and stellar potential, $P_{\rm ext}=(\pi G/2)\Sigma_{\rm ism}^2(1+\sigma_{\rm ism}\Sigma_\star/\sigma_\star\Sigma_{\rm ism})$. The comparison is carried out on mass-weighted averages of the cloud population in each galactic environment, which suppresses the scatter from individual cloud evolution and exposes the environmental dependence.

What would settle it

Measure the confining pressure around high-virial-parameter clouds in an outer galaxy disk independently of the hydrostatic assumption, for example from the measured HI scale height, velocity dispersion, and gas surface density. If the directly measured pressure is several times below the hydrostatic estimate, the pressure-confinement interpretation fails. At minimum, recomputing $\alpha_{\rm vir,theo}$ using several published $P_{\rm ext}$ prescriptions and checking whether the correlation with $\alpha_{\rm vir,obs}$ survives in all cases would settle how much the central claim depends on the chosen pressure formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that molecular clouds are in ambient pressure-balanced virial equilibrium, with the observed virial parameter $\alpha_{\rm vir, obs}=P_{\rm int}/P_{\rm self}$ matching the theoretical expectation $\alpha_{\rm vir, theo}=1+P_{\rm ext}/P_{\rm self}$ across the whole sample. The match holds with a median ratio of about 0.83 and a scatter of about 0.3 dex. Two classes emerge: in gas-rich, molecular-dominated, high-pressure regions such as galaxy centers and starbursts, clouds have $\alpha_{\rm vir}\approx 1$–2 and are close to self-virialization; in gas-poor, atomic-dominated, low-pressure regions such as outer disks and dwarf galaxies, clouds have $\alpha_{\rm vir}\approx 3$–10, indicating that their internal kinetic pressure is balanced by external pressure rather than self-gravity. The same data show that the star formation efficiency per free-fall time is low, 0.1%–1%, with a roughly two-order-of-magnitude dynamic range, and that turbulence-regulated models overpredict the efficiency in high-pressure environments by up to two orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

The external pressure $P_{\rm ext}$ is derived from vertical hydrostatic equilibrium assuming only diffuse gas contributes to the disk's weight, that giant molecular clouds do not contribute to the potential, and that magnetic fields and cosmic rays give negligible support; alternative pressure prescriptions from the literature differ by factors of a few, comparable to the systematic uncertainties, so adopting a different $P_{\rm ext}$ could weaken or erase the claimed correlation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Cloud dynamical state is environment-dependent: high-pressure regions contain self-virialized clouds, while low-pressure regions contain pressure-confined clouds that appear unbound by self-gravity alone.
  • The star formation efficiency per free-fall time is low (0.1%–1%) and varies systematically by about two orders of magnitude across galactic environments.
  • Turbulence-regulated star formation models that work for low-pressure, solar-neighborhood-like conditions overpredict the efficiency in high-pressure environments by up to two orders of magnitude, indicating missing physics.
  • The free-fall time alone is not a reliable predictor of star formation efficiency; the data show equally strong correlations with the crossing time and large scatter around any constant-efficiency relation.
  • A constant efficiency of about 1% per dynamical time describes the full range of environments at least as well as the tested turbulence models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the pressure-confinement picture is right, high-virial-parameter clouds in outer disks and dwarf galaxies may be long-lived structures kept together by external pressure rather than transient unbound gas; a discriminating observation would be to search for gravitationally bound cores inside them.
  • The model failures in high-pressure environments suggest that prescriptions for star formation need to incorporate boundary conditions imposed by the galactic disk, such as accretion, shear, and feedback, which would connect cloud-scale and disk-scale regulation.
  • The mass-weighted averaging approach predicts that the correlation between $\epsilon_{\rm ff}$ and $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ should strengthen when cloud catalogs become complete to lower masses in high-pressure environments; upcoming high-resolution surveys can test this.
  • A sharper test of the environmental control hypothesis would be to check whether the star formation efficiency scales with $\alpha_{\rm vir}-1=P_{\rm ext}/P_{\rm self}$ rather than with $\alpha_{\rm vir}$ alone in low-pressure environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles molecular cloud measurements and host galaxy properties for the Milky Way and seven nearby galaxies, derives mass-weighted mean cloud properties for entire galaxies and subregions, and compares the observed virial parameter (Eq. 2) with the value expected for clouds in external pressure equilibrium (Eq. 3). It reports a median ratio αvir,obs/αvir,theo ≈ 0.83 with ~0.3 dex scatter, interprets the two classes of clouds as self-gravitating versus externally pressurized, and shows that the star formation efficiency per free-fall time varies by ~2 dex across environments. The paper further argues that state-of-the-art turbulence-regulated star formation models overpredict the low efficiencies of clouds in high-pressure, molecular-dominated environments, and concludes that additional physical parameters beyond current models are needed. The comparison is presented as the largest and most direct synthesis of environment, cloud dynamical state, and star formation efficiency to date.

Significance. If the central relation holds, this is a valuable synthesis: it extends pressure-equilibrium tests from three galaxies to eight galaxies/subregions, uses cloud and environmental measurements that are independent in origin, and uses mass-weighted averaging to suppress individual-cloud scatter. The paper is also commendably candid about systematic uncertainties and model degeneracies. The cleanest quantitative evidence is the small scatter about the predicted diagonal in Figure 1. However, the headline relation inherits all of its environmental dependence from the adopted external pressure prescription, Eq. (6), which the paper itself acknowledges is uncertain by factors of a few. Because the two classes of clouds are separated partly by this prescription, the robustness of the central claim cannot be assessed without a quantitative sensitivity analysis. The claims about star formation model failure are interesting and falsifiable, but are similarly sensitive to the treatment of diffuse molecular gas and model normalization.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (6)] The central result, αvir,obs ≈ αvir,theo, is defined through the adopted external pressure Pext: αvir,theo = 1 + Pext/Pself. The manuscript states in Section 3.1 that alternative pressure prescriptions from the literature differ by factors of a few, comparable to the systematic uncertainties, and that this precludes a firm conclusion about which expression matches the data best. This is load-bearing rather than cosmetic: for the low-pressure 'pressurized' class, αvir,theo is only about 2–5, so a factor-of-2–3 change in Pext shifts the predicted values by several units and could move those points off the diagonal or erase the two-class separation. I request a quantitative sensitivity analysis that recomputes αvir,theo with at least the alternative prescriptions cited in the paper (e.g., Blitz & Rosolowsky 2006; Ostriker et al. 2010; Koyama & Ostriker 2009; Field et al. 2011) and reports the resulting median ratio, scatter, and class separation.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (2)–(5)] Because αvir,obs = Pint/Pself and αvir,theo = 1 + Pext/Pself, both axes have Pself in the denominator. Large variance in Pself across the sample can therefore induce or inflate an apparent correlation even if Pint and Pself + Pext are unrelated. The paper reports that the pressure–pressure scalings (Pint–Pself and Pint–Pext) have ~0.5 dex dispersion, but this does not directly establish that the αvir relation is dominated by the pressure balance rather than by the shared Pself normalization. I request a direct test of the pressure balance, e.g., fitting Pint versus Pself + Pext with uncertainties, and a partial-correlation or residual analysis that removes the common Pself normalization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1.1, Eq. (2)] The text uses 'viral parameter' where 'virial parameter' is intended; the same typo appears in the surrounding discussion of Eq. (3).
  2. [Section 2 and Table 1] The phrase 'in preperation' appears in the Table 1 reference list and in Section 2; it should be 'in preparation'.
  3. [Section 3.1] The sentence describing the pixel-based analysis says the method 'treces the virial parameter'; this should read 'traces'.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption states 'Dashes lines show theoretical predictions'; this should be 'Dashed lines'.
  5. [Section 3.2] The definition of ϵdyn is given in prose rather than as an equation; a compact equation with explicit τdyn = τff and τdyn = τcross cases would improve clarity and avoid confusion with the standard ϵff notation used in Section 1.2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central α_vir comparison and SFE model tests compare independently measured quantities, with the P_ext ambiguity being a robustness limitation rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The central test in Section 3.1 compares α_vir,obs = Pint/Pself (Eq. 2), built from cloud radius, velocity dispersion, and surface density, against α_vir,theo = 1 + Pext/Pself (Eq. 3), where Pext comes from the galactic ISM and stellar surface densities via Eq. 6. No fitted parameter links the two axes: Pext is derived from Σ_ism, Σ_*, and the velocity dispersions, not from Pint or from the cloud virial parameter. The claimed relation therefore is a real test of Pint ≈ Pself + Pext, reported as a median ratio of ~0.83 between α_vir,obs and α_vir,theo. The SFE comparison in Sections 3.2–3.3 uses the observed α_vir as an input to literature turbulence-regulated models and compares the predicted ϵ_dyn to the observed ϵ_dyn = τ_dyn/τ_dep; no model parameter is fitted to the observed SFE values. The paper explicitly discloses the one admitted normalization adjustment and, importantly, states in Section 3.1 that alternative Pext prescriptions differ by factors of a few and that this 'precludes a firm conclusion as to which expression matches our observations best.' That is an honest robustness limitation, not a circular step, because the adopted Pext is not defined in terms of the cloud's internal pressure. The citation to Ostriker et al. (2010), which includes a coauthor, supplies an external modeling assumption rather than a uniqueness theorem, and the paper itself treats the Pext choice as uncertain and testable. No prediction reduces to its input by construction, so no circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis introduces no new physical entities. It depends on standard virial theorem assumptions, the chosen external pressure prescription, adopted CO conversion and completeness corrections, and the representativeness of the cloud catalogs. The only ad hoc numerical freedom in the model comparison is the explicit normalization adjustment for low-pressure environments.

free parameters (4)
  • Turbulent Mach number M (model input) = Default 10; varied over 2 to 50
    Section 1.2 and 3.3: the model SFE predictions and the conclusion that low-α_vir high-pressure clouds are out of reach depend on this hand-picked value and the assumed plausible range.
  • Turbulence driving parameter b (model input) = Default 0.4; varied over 0.3 to 1.0
    Section 1.2 and 3.3: varies the log-normal density variance in the turbulence-regulated models; the range assumed is 'maximal plausible' and directly changes the predicted ε_ff.
  • Plasma beta (model input, magnetic support) = Default infinity (no magnetic fields); varied over 0.1 to 10^4
    Section 1.2 and 3.3: the authors consider β down to 0.1 but note that plausible values in galactic centers are debated; this affects the model normalization.
  • Ad hoc model normalization offset for low-pressure clouds = Not quoted; 'appropriately adjusted' to match low-pressure observations
    Section 3.3: the match between models and low-pressure, atomic-dominated regions requires adjusting the overall normalization of the models, an explicit fudge factor.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The virial theorem for a non-magnetized, isothermal, self-gravitating spherical cloud in a uniform external medium (Eq. 1) with geometric factor Γ = 0.6.
    Section 1.1: used to define α_vir,obs (Eq. 2) and α_vir,theo (Eq. 3). The theorem is standard; the constant-density spherical geometry is an adopted approximation contributing to systematic uncertainties that the authors account for.
  • domain assumption The external midplane pressure P_ext (Eq. 6) computed from vertical hydrostatic equilibrium, with only diffuse ISM contributing to the disk weight and negligible magnetic field and cosmic ray support, is the pressure that confines molecular clouds.
    Section 1.1 and 3.1: the central dynamical state comparison rests on this pressure estimate. The authors note alternative prescriptions from the literature differ by factors of a few, comparable to systematic uncertainties, precluding a firm conclusion about which matches best.
  • domain assumption The adopted CO-to-H2 conversion factors (4.35 for massive galaxies, twice that for low-mass galaxies) and the CPROPS resolution and sensitivity corrections yield unbiased cloud sizes, line widths, and masses.
    Section 2.2 and 2.3: heterogeneous surveys, different tracers, and incomplete cloud samples all feed into the mass-weighted averages; the authors do not correct for resolution or completeness.
  • domain assumption Mass-weighted mean cloud properties combined with galaxy-integrated depletion times provide a valid estimate of ε_dyn = τ_dyn/τ_dep for the cloud population.
    Section 2.2 and 3.2: neglects the contribution of diffuse molecular gas not in the cloud catalog; the authors estimate this could shift ε_dyn upward by about a factor of 3 and argue their main conclusions are preserved.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How Galactic Environment affects the Dynamical State of Molecular Clouds and their Star Formation Efficiency." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTONG6YA

@misc{pith2026190804306,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How Galactic Environment affects the Dynamical State of Molecular Clouds and their Star Formation Efficiency},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTONG6YA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04306}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how the dynamical state of molecular clouds relates to host galaxy environment, and how this impacts the star formation efficiency in the Milky Way and seven nearby galaxies. We compile measurements of molecular cloud and host galaxy properties and determine mass-weighted mean cloud properties for entire galaxies and distinct subregions within. We find molecular clouds to be in ambient pressure-balanced virial equilibrium, where clouds in gas-rich, molecular-dominated, high-pressure regions are close to self-virialization, whereas clouds in gas-poor, atomic-dominated, low-pressure environments achieve a balance between their internal kinetic pressure and external pressure from the ambient medium. The star formation efficiency per free-fall time of molecular clouds is low ~0.1%-1% and shows systematic variations of 2 dex as a function of the virial parameter and host galactic environment. The trend observed for clouds in low-pressure environments--as the solar neighborhood--is well matched by state-of-the-art turbulence-regulated models of star formation. However, these models substantially overpredict the low observed star formation efficiencies of clouds in high-pressure environments, which suggests the importance of additional physical parameters not yet considered by these models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04306 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Virial parameter, αvir, of molecular clouds de￾rived from the observed balance of the clouds’ kinetic and self-gravitational pressures (x-axis) and as predicted for viri￾alized clouds in external pressure equilibrium (y-axis). Data points show the mass-weighted average of the cloud popula￾tion of an entire galaxy or a distinct subregion therein. Error bars represent the statistical uncertainties and sample vari￾ance… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Star formation efficiency, dyn, as function of the virial parameter, αvir, and the related ratio of free-fall and turbulent crossing time, τff /τcross (top x-axis). Data points show the mass-weighted average of the cloud popula￾tion of an entire galaxy or a distinct subregion therein. Error bars represent the statistical uncertainties and sample vari￾ance (in color) and also including systematic uncertainties (in g… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Star formation efficiency, dyn, as function of the observed virial parameter, αvir, and the related ratio of free-fall and turbulent crossing time, τff /τcross (top x-axis) (same data as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., & Grisdale, K

    Agertz, O., Romeo, A. B., & Grisdale, K. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2156, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv440

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv440 2015

  2. [2]

    2014, ApJ, 783, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/135 Amor´ ın, R., Mu˜ noz-Tu˜ n´ on, C., Aguerri, J

    Amblard, A., Riguccini, L., Temi, P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 135, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/783/2/135 Amor´ ın, R., Mu˜ noz-Tu˜ n´ on, C., Aguerri, J. A. L., &

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/783/2/135 2014

  3. [3]

    2016, A&A, 588, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526397

    Planesas, P. 2016, A&A, 588, A23, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526397

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201526397 2016

  4. [4]

    T., Longmore, S

    Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 2263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx941

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx941 2017

  5. [5]

    Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140, doi: 10.1086/171638

    doi:10.1086/171638 1992

  6. [6]

    K., Walter, F., et al

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2011, ApJL, 730, L13+, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/L13

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/730/2/l13 2011

  7. [7]

    K., Jim´ enez-Donaire, M

    Bigiel, F., Leroy, A. K., Jim´ enez-Donaire, M. J., et al. 2016, ApJL, 822, L26, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/L26

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/822/2/l26 2016

  8. [8]

    2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    Bland-Hawthorn, J., & Gerhard, O. 2016, ARA&A, 54, 529, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023441 2016

Show all 146 references
  1. [9]

    R., & Moustakas, J

    Blanton, M. R., & Moustakas, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 159, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101734

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2004, ApJL, 612, L29, doi: 10.1086/424661 —

    Blitz, L., & Rosolowsky, E. 2004, ApJL, 612, L29, doi: 10.1086/424661 —. 2006, ApJ, 650, 933, doi: 10.1086/505417

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    2008, ApJ, 686, 948, doi: 10.1086/591513

    Blitz, L. 2008, ApJ, 686, 948, doi: 10.1086/591513

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    Bovy, J., & Rix, H.-W. 2013, ApJ, 779, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/115

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    A., Walterbos, R

    Braun, R., Thilker, D. A., Walterbos, R. A. M., & Corbelli, E. 2009, ApJ, 695, 937, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/937 Cald´ u-Primo, A., & Schruba, A. 2016, AJ, 151, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/34 Cald´ u-Primo, A., Schruba, A., Walter, F., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 150, doi: ...

    2009 doi

  6. [14]

    Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS submitted

    2019

  7. [15]

    Chieze, J. P. 1987, A&A, 171, 225

    1987

  8. [16]

    J., Jacoby, G

    Ciardullo, R., Feldmeier, J. J., Jacoby, G. H., et al. 2002, ApJ, 577, 31, doi: 10.1086/342180

    2002 doi

  9. [17]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/3

    Colombo, D., Hughes, A., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2014, ApJ, 784, 3, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/3

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    Crutcher, R. M. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 29, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    J., Williams, B

    Dalcanton, J. J., Williams, B. F., Lang, D., et al. 2012, ApJS, 200, 18, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/200/2/18

    2012 doi

  12. [20]

    M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P

    Dame, T. M., Hartmann, D., & Thaddeus, P. 2001, ApJ, 547, 792, doi: 10.1086/318388

    2001 doi

  13. [21]

    A., Young, L

    Davis, T. A., Young, L. M., Crocker, A. F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3427, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu570 Donovan Meyer, J., Koda, J., Momose, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 772, 107, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/107

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    E., Guhathakurta, P., Seth, A

    Dorman, C. E., Guhathakurta, P., Seth, A. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 24, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/24

    2015 doi

  15. [23]

    Downes, D., & Solomon, P. M. 1998, ApJ, 507, 615, doi: 10.1086/306339

    1998 doi

  16. [24]

    F., et al

    Druard, C., Braine, J., Schuster, K. F., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423682

    2014 doi

  17. [25]

    Elmegreen, B. G. 1989, ApJ, 338, 178, doi: 10.1086/167192

    1989 doi

  18. [26]

    J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N

    Evans, II, N. J., Heiderman, A., & Vutisalchavakul, N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 114, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/114 Faucher-Gigu` ere, C.-A., Quataert, E., & Hopkins, P. F. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1970, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt866

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 3167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1799

    Federrath, C. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 3167, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1799

    2013 doi

  20. [28]

    Federrath, C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, ApJ, 761, 156, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/2/156

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Federrath, C., Roman-Duval, J., Klessen, R. S., Schmidt, W., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2010, A&A, 512, A81, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/200912437

    2010 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Longmore, S

    Federrath, C., Rathborne, J. M., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 143, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/143

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    Y., & Kravtsov, A

    Feldmann, R., Gnedin, N. Y., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2011, ApJ, 732, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/732/2/115

    2011 doi

  24. [33]

    E., S´ anchez Almeida, J., Amor´ ın, R., et al

    Filho, M. E., S´ anchez Almeida, J., Amor´ ın, R., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 109, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/109

    2016 doi

  25. [34]

    P., Gear, W

    Ford, G. P., Gear, W. K., Smith, M. W. L., et al. 2013, ApJ, 769, 55, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/55

    2013 doi

  26. [35]

    2010, ARA&A, 48, 547, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130854

    Fukui, Y., & Kawamura, A. 2010, ARA&A, 48, 547, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081309-130854

    2010 doi

  27. [36]

    J., Leroy, A

    Gallagher, M. J., Leroy, A. K., Bigiel, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 858, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabad8 Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Usero, A., Alonso-Herrero, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117838

    2018 doi

  28. [37]

    2004, AJ, 128, 1167, doi: 10.1086/422924

    Gieren, W., Pietrzy´ nski, G., Walker, A., et al. 2004, AJ, 128, 1167, doi: 10.1086/422924

    2004 doi

  29. [38]

    J., et al

    Gratier, P., Braine, J., Rodriguez-Fernandez, N. J., et al. 2010, A&A, 522, A3+, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014441 Galactic Environment and Star Formation 17

    2010 doi

  30. [39]

    2016, A&A, 590, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628123

    Grossi, M., Corbelli, E., Bizzocchi, L., et al. 2016, A&A, 590, A27, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628123

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    C., & Hopkins, P

    Hayward, C. C., & Hopkins, P. F. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1682, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2888

    2017 doi

  32. [41]

    2011, ApJL, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29 —

    Hennebelle, P., & Chabrier, G. 2011, ApJL, 743, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/L29 —. 2013, ApJ, 770, 150, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/770/2/150

    2011 doi

  33. [42]

    D., Longmore, S

    Henshaw, J. D., Longmore, S. N., & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2016, MNRAS, 463, L122, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw168

    2016 doi

  34. [43]

    Heyer, M., & Dame, T. M. 2015, ARA&A, 53, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122324

    2015 doi

  35. [44]

    S., et al

    Heyer, M., Gutermuth, R., Urquhart, J. S., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A29, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527681

    2016 doi

  36. [45]

    Heyer, M., Krawczyk, C., Duval, J., & Jackson, J. M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 1092, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/2/1092

    2009 doi

  37. [46]

    H., Carpenter, J

    Heyer, M. H., Carpenter, J. M., & Snell, R. L. 2001, ApJ, 551, 852, doi: 10.1086/320218

    2001 doi

  38. [48]

    2016, in IAU

    Hughes, A., Meidt, S., Colombo, D., et al. 2016, in IAU

    2016

  39. [49]

    E., Colombo, D., et al

    Hughes, A., Meidt, S. E., Colombo, D., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 779, 46, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/46

    doi

  40. [50]

    E., Schinnerer, E., et al

    Hughes, A., Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., et al. 2013b, ApJ, 779, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/44

    doi

  41. [51]

    K., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Casasola, V., et al

    Hunt, L. K., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., Casasola, V., et al. 2015, A&A, 583, A114, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526553

    2015 doi

  42. [52]

    Hygate, A. P. S., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Chevance, M., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 2800, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1779

    2019 doi

  43. [53]

    2014, A&A, 567, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423480

    Iodice, E., Arnaboldi, M., Rejkuba, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 567, A86, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423480

    2014 doi

  44. [54]

    E., Bolatto, A

    Jameson, K. E., Bolatto, A. D., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2016, ApJ, 825, 12, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/825/1/12

    2016 doi

  45. [55]

    Kalberla, P. M. W., & Kerp, J. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 27, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-082708-101823

    2009 doi

  46. [56]

    2015, MNRAS, 449, 4048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv517

    Epinat, B. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 4048, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv517

    2015 doi

  47. [57]

    2016, A&A, 585, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527041 Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., Zhang, Q., et al

    Kang, X., Zhang, F., Chang, R., Wang, L., & Cheng, L. 2016, A&A, 585, A20, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201527041 Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., Zhang, Q., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A89, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628088

    2016 doi

  48. [58]

    C., & Evans, N

    Kennicutt, R. C., & Evans, N. J. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 531, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125610

    2012 doi

  49. [59]

    Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. 1998, ApJ, 498, 541, doi: 10.1086/305588

    1998 doi

  50. [60]

    Kim, C.-G., Kim, W.-T., & Ostriker, E. C. 2011, ApJ, 743, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/743/1/25

    2011 doi

  51. [61]

    C., & Kim, W.-T

    Kim, C.-G., Ostriker, E. C., & Kim, W.-T. 2013, ApJ, 776, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/776/1/1

    2013 doi

  52. [62]

    Koyama, H., & Ostriker, E. C. 2009, ApJ, 693, 1346, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1346

    2009 doi

  53. [63]

    Kreckel, K., Faesi, C., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2018, ApJL, 863, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad77d

    2018 doi

  54. [64]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Longmore, S. N. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 2598, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1634 —. 2014, MNRAS, 439, 3239, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu098

    2013 doi

  55. [65]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Longmore, S. N., Elmegreen, B. G., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 3370, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu494

    2014 doi

  56. [66]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Hygate, A. P. S., et al. 2018, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1128

    2018 doi

  57. [67]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Chevance, M., et al. 2019a, Nature, 569, 519, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1194-3

    doi

  58. [68]

    Kruijssen, J. M. D., Dale, J. E., Longmore, S. N., et al. 2019b, MNRAS, 484, 5734, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz381

    doi

  59. [69]

    Krumholz, M. R. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 2747, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1780 —. 2014, PhR, 539, 49, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.001

    2013 doi

  60. [70]

    R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J

    Krumholz, M. R., Burkhart, B., Forbes, J. C., & Crocker, R. M. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2716, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty852

    2018 doi

  61. [71]

    R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., Dekel, A., & McKee, C. F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/69

    2012 doi

  62. [72]

    R., & Kruijssen, J

    Krumholz, M. R., & Kruijssen, J. M. D. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 739, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1670

    2015 doi

  63. [73]

    R., Kruijssen, J

    Krumholz, M. R., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Crocker, R. M. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 1213, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3195

    2017 doi

  64. [74]

    R., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2005, ApJ, 630, 250, doi: 10.1086/431734

    2005 doi

  65. [75]

    R., & Tan, J

    Krumholz, M. R., & Tan, J. C. 2007, ApJ, 654, 304, doi: 10.1086/509101

    2007 doi

  66. [76]

    Larson, R. B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809

    1981

  67. [77]

    Launhardt, R., Zylka, R., & Mezger, P. G. 2002, A&A, 384, 112, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20020017

    2002 doi

  68. [78]

    J., Chang, P., & Murray, N

    Lee, E. J., Chang, P., & Murray, N. 2015, ApJ, 800, 49, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/49

    2015 doi

  69. [79]

    J., Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., & Murray, N

    Lee, E. J., Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., & Murray, N. W. 2016, ApJ, 833, 229, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/229

    2016 doi

  70. [80]

    K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Brinks, E., et al. 2008, AJ, 136, 2782, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/136/6/2782

    2008 doi

  71. [81]

    K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., Sandstrom, K., et al. 2013a, AJ, 146, 19, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/19

    doi

  72. [82]

    K., Lee, C., Schruba, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Lee, C., Schruba, A., et al. 2013b, ApJL, 769, L12, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/769/1/L12

    doi

  73. [83]

    K., Bolatto, A

    Leroy, A. K., Bolatto, A. D., Ostriker, E. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 801, 25, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/25 18 Schruba, Kruijssen, Leroy

    2015 doi

  74. [84]

    K., Hughes, A., Schruba, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Hughes, A., Schruba, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, 16, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/16

    2016 doi

  75. [85]

    K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Schinnerer, E., Hughes, A., et al. 2017a, ApJ, 846, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa7fef

    doi

  76. [86]

    K., Usero, A., Schruba, A., et al

    Leroy, A. K., Usero, A., Schruba, A., et al. 2017b, ApJ, 835, 217, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/217

    doi

  77. [87]

    C., & Newman, J

    Licquia, T. C., & Newman, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 806, 96, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/806/1/96 —. 2016, ApJ, 831, 71, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/71

    2015 doi

  78. [88]

    N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al

    Longmore, S. N., Bally, J., Testi, L., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 987, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts376

    2013 doi

  79. [89]

    M., Carignan, C., Elson, E

    Lucero, D. M., Carignan, C., Elson, E. C., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3935, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv856

    2015 doi

  80. [90]

    M., & Young, L

    Lucero, D. M., & Young, L. M. 2013, AJ, 145, 56, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/3/56

    2013 doi

  81. [91]

    E., Schinnerer, E., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al

    Meidt, S. E., Schinnerer, E., Garc´ ıa-Burillo, S., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/45

    2013 doi

  82. [92]

    E., Leroy, A

    Meidt, S. E., Leroy, A. K., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2018, ApJ, 854, 100, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa290 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Murray, N., & Lee, E. J. 2017, ApJ, 834, 57, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/57

    2018 doi

  83. [93]

    M., de Blok, W

    Mogotsi, K. M., de Blok, W. J. G., Cald´ u-Primo, A., et al. 2016, AJ, 151, 15, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/1/15 Mu˜ noz-Mateos, J. C., Gil de Paz, A., Boissier, S., et al. 2007, ApJ, 658, 1006, doi: 10.1086/511812 Mu˜ noz-Mateos, J. C., Sheth, K., Regan, M., et al. 2015, ApJS,...

    2016 doi

  84. [94]

    2011, ApJ, 729, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/133

    Murray, N. 2011, ApJ, 729, 133, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/729/2/133

    2011 doi

  85. [95]

    2015, ApJ, 804, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/44

    Murray, N., & Chang, P. 2015, ApJ, 804, 44, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/804/1/44

    2015 doi

  86. [96]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv108

    Nakanishi, H., & Sofue, Y. 2016, PASJ, 68, 5, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psv108

    2016 doi

  87. [97]

    2006, A&A, 453, 459, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035672

    Nieten, C., Neininger, N., Gu´ elin, M., et al. 2006, A&A, 453, 459, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20035672

    2006 doi

  88. [98]

    Rahman, M., & Evans, II, N. J. 2017, ApJ, 841, 109, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa704a

    2017 doi

  89. [99]

    2001, ApJ, 562, 348, doi: 10.1086/322976

    Oka, T., Hasegawa, T., Sato, F., et al. 2001, ApJ, 562, 348, doi: 10.1086/322976

    2001 doi

  90. [100]

    2010, ApJL, 722, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L127

    Onodera, S., Kuno, N., Tosaki, T., et al. 2010, ApJL, 722, L127, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/722/2/L127

    2010 doi

  91. [101]

    C., McKee, C

    Ostriker, E. C., McKee, C. F., & Leroy, A. K. 2010, ApJ, 721, 975, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/975

    2010 doi

  92. [102]

    2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 77, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch004

    Padoan, P., Federrath, C., Chabrier, G., et al. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 77, doi: 10.2458/azu uapress 9780816531240-ch004

    2014 doi

  93. [103]

    2012, ApJL, 759, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L27

    Padoan, P., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2012, ApJL, 759, L27, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/759/2/L27

    2012 doi

  94. [104]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa

    Padoan, P., Haugbølle, T., Nordlund, ˚A., & Frimann, S. 2017, ApJ, 840, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6afa

    2017 doi

  95. [105]

    2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

    Padoan, P., & Nordlund, ˚A. 2011, ApJ, 730, 40, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/730/1/40

    2011 doi

  96. [106]

    K., et al

    Pety, J., Schinnerer, E., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 43, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/43

    2013 doi

  97. [107]

    C., et al

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Tan, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/74

    2015 doi

  98. [108]

    G., McCall, M

    Rekola, R., Richer, M. G., McCall, M. L., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 330, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09166.x

    2005

  99. [109]

    2015, ApJL, 801, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L29

    Renzini, A., & Peng, Y.-j. 2015, ApJL, 801, L29, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/801/2/L29

    2015 doi

  100. [110]

    S., Goodman, A

    Rice, T. S., Goodman, A. A., Bergin, E. A., Beaumont, C., & Dame, T. M. 2016, ApJ, 822, 52, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/1/52

    2016 doi

  101. [111]

    M., et al

    Roman-Duval, J., Heyer, M., Brunt, C. M., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 144, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/144

    2016 doi

  102. [113]

    2003, ApJ, 599, 258, doi: 10.1086/379166

    Rosolowsky, E., Engargiola, G., Plambeck, R., & Blitz, L. 2003, ApJ, 599, 258, doi: 10.1086/379166

    2003 doi

  103. [114]

    2006, PASP, 118, 590, doi: 10.1086/502982

    Rosolowsky, E., & Leroy, A. 2006, PASP, 118, 590, doi: 10.1086/502982

    2006 doi

  104. [117]

    2013, ApJ, 778, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/2

    Saintonge, A., Lutz, D., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 778, 2, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/2

    2013 doi

  105. [118]

    B., Mazzarella, J

    Sanders, D. B., Mazzarella, J. M., Kim, D.-C., Surace, J. A., & Soifer, B. T. 2003, AJ, 126, 1607, doi: 10.1086/376841

    2003 doi

  106. [119]

    E., Pety, J., et al

    Schinnerer, E., Meidt, S. E., Pety, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/42

    2013 doi

  107. [120]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 1699, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1699

    Rosolowsky, E. 2010, ApJ, 722, 1699, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1699

    2010 doi

  108. [121]

    K., Walter, F., et al

    Schruba, A., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2012, AJ, 143, 138, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/143/6/138

    2012 doi

  109. [122]

    K., Kruijssen, J

    Schruba, A., Leroy, A. K., Kruijssen, J. M. D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 278, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/278

    2017 doi

  110. [123]

    F., Kramer, C., Hitschfeld, M., Garcia-Burillo, S., & Mookerjea, B

    Schuster, K. F., Kramer, C., Hitschfeld, M., Garcia-Burillo, S., & Mookerjea, B. 2007, A&A, 461, 143, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20065579

    2007 doi

  111. [124]

    Seigar, M. S. 2011, ISRN Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2011, 725697, doi: 10.5402/2011/725697

    2011 doi

  112. [125]

    A., Kravtsov, A

    Semenov, V. A., Kravtsov, A. V., & Gnedin, N. Y. 2016, ApJ, 826, 200, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/826/2/200 Galactic Environment and Star Formation 19

    2016 doi

  113. [126]

    N., Burton, M

    Shetty, R., Beaumont, C. N., Burton, M. G., Kelly, B. C., & Klessen, R. S. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 720, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21588.x

    2012

  114. [127]

    2011, ApJ, 733, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/87

    Shi, Y., Helou, G., Yan, L., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733, 87, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/87

    2011 doi

  115. [128]

    A., Engelbracht, C

    Skibba, R. A., Engelbracht, C. W., Aniano, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 761, 42, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/761/1/42

    2012 doi

  116. [129]

    2016, PASJ, 68, 63, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw062

    Sofue, Y., & Nakanishi, H. 2016, PASJ, 68, 63, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psw062

    2016 doi

  117. [130]

    M., Rivolo, A

    Solomon, P. M., Rivolo, A. R., Barrett, J., & Yahil, A. 1987, ApJ, 319, 730, doi: 10.1086/165493

    1987 doi

  118. [131]

    1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    Spitzer, L. 1978, Physical processes in the interstellar medium, doi: 10.1002/9783527617722

    1978 doi

  119. [132]

    R., Haynes, R

    Staveley-Smith, L., Kim, S., Calabretta, M. R., Haynes, R. F., & Kesteven, M. J. 2003, MNRAS, 339, 87, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06146.x

    2003

  120. [133]

    K., Schruba, A., et al

    Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., Schruba, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 860, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac326

    2018 doi

  121. [134]

    J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Neri, R., Genzel, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 768, 74, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/768/1/74

    2013 doi

  122. [135]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4

    2018 doi

  123. [136]

    2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    Tuvikene, T. 2012, A&A, 546, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201220065

    2012 doi

  124. [137]

    L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J

    Tonry, J. L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J. P., et al. 2001, ApJ, 546, 681, doi: 10.1086/318301

    2001 doi

  125. [138]

    1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    Toomre, A. 1964, ApJ, 139, 1217, doi: 10.1086/147861

    1964 doi

  126. [139]

    K., Walter, F., et al

    Usero, A., Leroy, A. K., Walter, F., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 115, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/150/4/115

    2015 doi

  127. [140]

    2015, ApJ, 803, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/16

    Utomo, D., Blitz, L., Davis, T., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 16, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/16

    2015 doi

  128. [141]

    K., et al

    Utomo, D., Sun, J., Leroy, A. K., et al. 2018, ApJL, 861, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aacf8f van der Marel, R. P., Alves, D. R., Hardy, E., & Suntzeff, N. B. 2002, AJ, 124, 2639, doi: 10.1086/343775

    2018 doi

  129. [142]

    Verley, S., Corbelli, E., Giovanardi, C., & Hunt, L. K. 2009, A&A, 493, 453, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:200810566

    2009 doi

  130. [143]

    J., & Heyer, M

    Vutisalchavakul, N., Evans, II, N. J., & Heyer, M. 2016, ApJ, 831, 73, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/1/73

    2016 doi

  131. [144]

    L., Longmore, S

    Walker, D. L., Longmore, S. N., Bastian, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 4536, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw313 —. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 715, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv300

    2016 doi

  132. [145]

    H., Vogel, S

    Wei, L. H., Vogel, S. N., Kannappan, S. J., et al. 2010, ApJL, 725, L62, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/725/1/L62

    2010 doi

  133. [147]

    2003, ApJ, 599, 1049, doi: 10.1086/379344

    Charmandaris, V. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1049, doi: 10.1086/379344

    2003 doi

  134. [148]

    D., Warren, B

    Wilson, C. D., Warren, B. E., Irwin, J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 410, 1409, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17646.x Wolfire, M. G., McKee, C. F., Hollenbach, D., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2003, ApJ, 587, 278, doi: 10.1086/368016

    2011

  135. [149]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 370, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/370

    Wong, T., Hughes, A., Fukui, Y., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 370, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/696/1/370

    2009 doi

  136. [150]

    2011, ApJS, 197, 16, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/16

    Wong, T., Hughes, A., Ott, J., et al. 2011, ApJS, 197, 16, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/16

    2011 doi

  137. [151]

    S., Xie, S., Tacconi, L., et al

    Young, J. S., Xie, S., Tacconi, L., et al. 1995, ApJS, 98, 219, doi: 10.1086/192159

    1995 doi

  138. [152]

    M., Bureau, M., Davis, T

    Young, L. M., Bureau, M., Davis, T. A., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 414, 940, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18561.x

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.