CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 193Astrophysics and Star Formation StudiesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

Star formation rates and efficiencies in the Galactic Centre

Open access
Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., Bally, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Henshaw, J. D., Walker, D. L.·2017·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
DOI 10.1093/mnras/stx941
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The inner few hundred parsecs of the Milky Way harbours gas densities, pressures, velocity dispersions, an interstellar radiation field and a cosmic ray ionisation rate orders of magnitude higher than the disc; akin to the environment found in star-forming galaxies at high-redshift. Previous studies have shown that this region is forming stars at a rate per unit mass of dense gas which is at least an order of magnitude lower than in the disc, potentially violating theoretical predictions. We show that all observational star formation rate diagnostics - both direct counting of young stellar objects and integrated light measurements - are in agreement within a factor two, hence the low star formation rate is not the result of the systematic uncertainties that affect any one method. As these methods trace the star formation over different timescales, from $0.1 - 5$ Myr, we conclude that the star formation rate has been constant to within a factor of a few within this time period. We investigate the progression of star formation within gravitationally bound clouds on $\sim$ parsec scales and find $1 - 4$ per cent of the cloud masses are converted into stars per free-fall time, consistent with a subset of the considered "volumetric" star formation models. However, discriminating between these models is obstructed by the current uncertainties on the input observables and, most importantly and urgently, by their dependence on ill-constrained free parameters. The lack of empirical constraints on these parameters therefore represents a key challenge in the further verification or falsification of current star formation theories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stx941

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Henshaw et al. (2022) note that the average SFR in the CMZ over the past ~5 Myr is ~0.07 M⊙/yr, and over the last 5-100 Myr is ~0.09 M⊙/yr, and is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the expected SFR inside the CMZ based on gas surface density or dynamical modeling.

    “Henshaw et al. (2022) note that the average SFR in the CMZ over the past ∼ 5 Myr is ∼ 0 . 07 M ⊙ yr -1 , and over the last 5 -100 Myr is ∼ 0 . 09 M ⊙ yr -1 and is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the expected SFR inside the CMZ based on the gas surface density (Longmore et al. 2013; Barnes et al. 2017; Henshaw et al. 2022) or dynamical modeling of the CMZ (Krumholz et al. 2017; Armillotta”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Barnes et al. 2017

  • Integrated IR emission of star-forming regions in the CMZ indicates an SFR of ~0.1 M⊙/yr.

    “Integrated IR emission of star-forming regions (resolved or unresolved) in the CMZ indicates an SFR of ∼ 0 . 1 M ⊙ yr -1 (YusefZadeh et al. 2009; Barnes et al. 2017).”

    From The Fermi/eROSITA bubbles: a look into the nuclear outflow from the Milky Way (2024) · cites this paper as Barnes et al. 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Barnes, A. T., Longmore, S. N., Battersby, C., Bally, J., Kruijssen, J. M. D., Henshaw, J. D., & Walker, D. L.
Affiliations
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
  • Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Barnes, A. T.
ORCID
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2017-04-21
Volume
469
Issue
2
Pages
2263-2285
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
DOI
10.1093/mnras/stx941
OpenAlex
W2606765257
Cited by
193
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 7
FWCI
12.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (KR4801/1-1)
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 › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
Galactic Center, star formation rate, star formation efficiency, dense gas, young stellar objects, integrated light, free-fall time, star formation models, Milky Way

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