The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Star cluster formation and disruption time-scales - I. An empirical determination of the disruption time of star clusters in four galaxies
Open accessAbstract
We have derived the disruption times of star clusters from cluster samples of four galaxies, M51, M33, the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) and the solar neighbourhood. If the disruption time of clusters in a galaxy depends only on their initial mass as tdis(yr) =t4dis(Mcl/104 M⊙)γ, and if the cluster formation rate is constant, then the mass and age distributions of the observed clusters will each be given by double power-law relations. For clusters of low mass or young age the power law depends on the fading of the clusters below the detection limit due to the evolution of the stars. For clusters of high mass and old age the power law depends on the disruption time of the clusters. The samples of clusters in M51 and M33, observed with HST-WFPC2, indeed show the predicted double power-law relations in both their mass and age distributions. The values of tdis4 and γ can be derived from these relations. For the cluster samples of the SMC and the solar neighbourhood, taken from the literature, only the age distribution is known. This also shows the characteristic double power-law behaviour, which allows the determination of t4dis and γ in these galaxies. The values of γ are the same in the four galaxies within the uncertainty, and the mean value is γ= 0.62 ± 0.06. However, the disruption time t4dis of a cluster of 104 M⊙ is very different in the different galaxies. The clusters in the SMC have the longest disruption time, t4dis≃ 8 × 109 yr, and the clusters at 1–3 kpc from the nucleus of M51 have the shortest disruption time of t4dis≃ 4 × 107 yr. The disruption time of clusters 1–5 kpc from the nucleus of M33 is t4dis≃ 1.3 × 108 yr and for clusters within 1 kpc from the Sun we find t4dis≃ 1.0 × 109 yr.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Starburst99: Synthesis Models for Galaxies with Active Star Formation
Leitherer, C., Schaerer, D., Goldader, J. D., Delgado, R. M. G., Robert, C., Kune, D. F., de Mello, D. F., Devost, D., & Heckman, T. M. (1999) · The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · doi:10.1086/313233 · Cited by 4,126
Cited by
Famaey, B., Jorissen, A., Luri, X., Mayor, M., Udry, S., Dejonghe, H., & Turon, C. (2005) · Astronomy & Astrophysics · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041272 · Cited by 435
Krumholz, M. R. (2014) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.001 · Cited by 321
Star cluster disruption by giant molecular clouds
Gieles, M., Zwart, S. F. P., Baumgardt, H., Athanassoula, E., Lamers, H. J. G. L. M., Sipior, M., & Leenaarts, J. (2006) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10711.x · Cited by 278
Self-citationPfeffer, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Crain, R. A., & Bastian, N. (2018) · Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3124 · Cited by 243
Metadata
- Authors
- Boutloukos, S. G., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M.
- Venue
- Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 338
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 717-732
- ISSN
- 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2966
- OpenAlex
- W2002086334
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Star cluster formation and disruption time-scales - I. An empirical determination of the disruption time of star clusters in four galaxies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06083.x
- The paper
- Boutloukos, S. G., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. (2003). Star cluster formation and disruption time-scales - I. An empirical determination of the disruption time of star clusters in four galaxies. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06083.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.