Cited by 95Astrophysics and Star Formation StudiesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studies

On the duration of the embedded phase of star formation

Open access
Kim, Jaeyeon, Chevance, Mélanie, Kruijssen, J M Diederik, Schruba, Andreas, Sandstrom, Karin, Barnes, Ashley T, Bigiel, Frank, Blanc, Guillermo A +18 more·2021·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

Feedback from massive stars plays a key role in molecular cloud evolution. After the onset of star formation, the young stellar population is exposed by photoionization, winds, supernovae, and radiation pressure from massive stars. Recent observations of nearby galaxies have provided the evolutionary timeline between molecular clouds and exposed young stars, but the duration of the embedded phase of massive star formation is still ill-constrained. We measure how long massive stellar populations remain embedded within their natal cloud, by applying a statistical method to six nearby galaxies at $20{-}100~\mbox{${\rm ~pc}$}$ resolution, using CO, Spitzer 24$\rm \, \mu m$, and H α emission as tracers of molecular clouds, embedded star formation, and exposed star formation, respectively. We find that the embedded phase (with CO and 24$\rm \, \mu m$ emission) lasts for 2−7 Myr and constitutes $17{-}47{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ of the cloud lifetime. During approximately the first half of this phase, the region is invisible in H α, making it heavily obscured. For the second half of this phase, the region also emits in H α and is partially exposed. Once the cloud has been dispersed by feedback, 24$\rm \, \mu m$ emission no longer traces ongoing star formation, but remains detectable for another 2−9 Myr through the emission from ambient CO-dark gas, tracing star formation that recently ended. The short duration of massive star formation suggests that pre-supernova feedback (photoionization and winds) is important in disrupting molecular clouds. The measured time-scales do not show significant correlations with environmental properties (e.g. metallicity). Future JWST observations will enable these measurements routinely across the nearby galaxy population.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stab878

Cites

186 of 186 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 24um emission is dominated by dust heated by very young, deeply embedded massive stars and responds on timescales of only a few Myr.

    “In particular, 24 µ m emission is dominated by dust heated by very young, deeply embedded massive stars and responds on timescales of only a few Myr (e.g., Kruijssen et al. 2018; Kim et al. 2021; Wainer et al. 2026)”

    From The Panchromatic Hubble Andromeda Southern Treasury (PHAST). II. The Spatially Resolved Recent Star Formation History in M31 (2026) · cites this paper as Kim et al. 2021

    Section 5.3 says 24 µm emission traces dust-reprocessed light from massive stars, but also reports that diffuse emission constitutes, on average, 55% of the emission; the maps mostly contain emission from young stars only after filtering. Section 4.1.2 measures the 24 µm emitting phase at 4–14 Myr, so describing the emission generally as dominated by deeply embedded stars and responsive on timescales of only a few Myr overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [17]17. Chevance M. et al., 2020a, preprint (arXiv:2010.13788) · arXiv
  2. [53]53. Greenawalt B. E., 1998, PhD thesis, New Mexico State University
  3. [63]63. Hygate A. P. S., 2020, PhD thesis, Ruperto-Carola-University of Heidelberg
  4. [78]78. Kim J.-G., Ostriker E. C., Filippova N., 2020, preprint (arXiv:2011.07772) · arXiv
  5. [138]138. Sick J., Courteau S., Cuillandre J.-C., Dalcanton J., de Jong R., McDonald M., Simard D., Tully R. B., 2015, in Cappellari M., Courteau S., eds, Vol. 311, Galaxy Masses as Constraints of Formation Models, p. 82

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, J., Chevance, M., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Schruba, A., Sandstrom, K., Barnes, A. T., Bigiel, F., Blanc, G. A., Cao, Y., Dale, D. A., Faesi, C. M., Glover, S. C. O., Grasha, K., Groves, B., Herrera, C., Klessen, R. S., Kreckel, K., Lee, J. C., Leroy, A. K., Pety, J., Querejeta, M., Schinnerer, E., Sun, J., Usero, A., Ward, J. L., & Williams, T. G.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics (DE)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of Bonn (DE)
  • Carnegie Institution for Science (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • University of Wyoming (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • Ausonius Institut de Recherche sur l'Antiquité et le Moyen age (FR)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Spanish National Observatory (ES)
  • Max Planck Institute for Astronomy (DE)
Corresponding author
Kim, Jaeyeon
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2021-03-26
Volume
504
Issue
1
Pages
487-509
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W3108816580
Cited by
95
References
186
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16
FWCI
10.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • DFG (KR4801/2-1, KR4801/1-1, KR4598/2-1)
  • European Research Council (714907, 726384, 694343)
  • NSF (1615105, 1615109, 1653300)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Keywords
massive star formation, molecular cloud evolution, stellar feedback, photoionization, stellar winds, cloud disruption, cloud lifetime, carbon monoxide emissions, 24 micron emission, H-alpha emission, nearby galaxies, obscured star formation

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