Source author record

L. Lenkić

L. Lenkić appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

1works
1topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2021arXiv

Systematic difference between ionized and molecular gas velocity dispersion in $z\sim1-2$ disks and local analogues

We compare the molecular and ionized gas velocity dispersion of 9 nearby turbulent disks, analogues to high-redshift galaxies, from the DYNAMO sample using new ALMA and GMOS/Gemini observations. We combine our sample with 12 galaxies at $z\sim $0.5-2.5 from the literature. We find that the resolved velocity dispersion is systematically lower by a factor $2.45\pm0.38$ for the molecular gas compared to the ionized gas, after correcting for thermal broadening. This offset is constant within the galaxy disks and indicates the co-existence of a thin molecular and thick ionized gas disks. This result has a direct impact on the Toomre $Q$ and pressure derived in galaxies. We obtain pressures $\sim0.22$ dex lower on average when using the molecular gas velocity dispersion, $σ_{0,mol}$. We find that $σ_{0,mol}$ increases with gas fraction and star formation rate. We also obtain an increase with redshift and show that the EAGLE and FIRE simulations overall overestimate $σ_{0,mol}$ at high redshift. Our results suggest that efforts to compare the kinematics of gas using ionized gas as a proxy for the total gas may overestimate the velocity dispersion by a significant amount in galaxies at the peak of cosmic star formation. When using the molecular gas as a tracer, our sample is not consistent with predictions from constant efficiency star formation models, even when including transport as a source of turbulence. Feedback models with variable star formation efficiency, $ε_{ff}$, and/or feedback efficiency, $p_*/m_*$, better predict our observations.