Cited by 46Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations

Fossil stellar streams and their globular cluster populations in the E-MOSAICS simulations

Open access
Hughes, Meghan E, Pfeffer, Joel, Martig, Marie, Bastian, Nate, Crain, Robert A, Kruijssen, J M Diederik, Reina-Campos, Marta·2019·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

Stellar haloes encode a fossil record of a galaxy’s accretion history, generally in the form of structures of low surface brightness, such as stellar streams. While their low surface brightness makes it challenging to determine their age, metallicity, kinematics, and spatial structure, the infalling galaxies also deposit globular clusters (GCs) in the halo, which are bright and therefore easier to observe and characterize. To understand how GCs associated with stellar streams can be used to estimate the stellar mass and the infall time of their parent galaxy, we examine a subset of 15 simulations of galaxies and their star clusters from the E-MOSAICS project. E-MOSAICS is a suite of hydrodynamical simulations incorporating a sub-grid model for GC formation and evolution. We find that more massive accreted galaxies typically contribute to younger and more metal-rich GCs. This lower age results from a more extended cluster formation history in more massive galaxies. In addition, at fixed stellar mass, galaxies that are accreted later host younger clusters, because they can continue to form GCs without being subjected to environmental influences for longer. This explains the large range of ages observed for clusters associated with the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy in the halo of the Milky Way compared to clusters that are thought to have formed in satellites accreted early in the Milky Way’s formation history. Using the ages of the GCs associated with the Sagittarius dwarf, we estimate a virial radius crossing lookback time (infall time) of |$9.3 \pm 1.8\, {\rm Gyr}$|⁠.

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/sty2889

Cites

112 of 112 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?

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: 8

  1. Bastian N., 2016, in Moraux E., Lebreton Y., Charbonnel C., eds, EAS Publications Series Vol. 80, EAS Publications Series. pp
  2. Booth C. M., Schaye J., 2009, in Heinz S., Wilcots E., eds, American Institute of Physics Conference Series Vol. 1201, American Institute of Physics Conference Series. pp 21-24, doi:10.1063/1.3293041 · DOI
  3. Ferguson A. M. N., Irwin M. J., Ibata R. A., Lewis G. F., Tanvir N. R., 2002, The Astronomical Journal, 124, 1452
  4. Johnston K. V., Bullock J. S., Sharma S., Font A., Robertson B. E., Leitner S. N., 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 689, 936
  5. Kruijssen J. M. D., Pfeffer J. L., Reina-Campos M., Crain R. A., Bastian N., 2018b, MNRAS in press, arXiv:1806.05680 · arXiv
  6. Mackey A. D., et al., 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, L11
  7. Shipp N., et al., 2018, preprint, ( arXiv:1801.03097 ) · arXiv
  8. Sohn S. T., Watkins L. L., Fardal M. A., van der Marel R. P., Deason A. J., Besla G., Bellini A., 2018, preprint, ( arXiv:1804.01994 ) · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, M. E., Pfeffer, J., Martig, M., Bastian, N., Crain, R. A., Kruijssen, J. M. D., & Reina-Campos, M.
Affiliations
  • Liverpool John Moores University (GB)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
Hughes, Meghan E
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2018-10-25
Volume
482
Issue
2
Pages
2795-2806
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2897622427
Cited by
46
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • European Research Council (ERC-CoG-646928-Multi-Pop, 714907)
  • German Research Foundation (KR4801/1-1)
  • Horizon 2020
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council (ST/K00042X/1, ST/H008519/1, ST/K00087X/1)
Topics
  • 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
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Keywords
globular cluster populations, stellar haloes, Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, infall time, Galactic halo, cluster metallicity, cluster age

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