Paper detail

A comparison between star formation rate diagnostics and rate of core collapse supernovae within 11 Mpc

The core collapse supernova (CCSN) rate provides a strong lower limit for the star formation rate (SFR). Progress in using it as a cosmic SFR tracer requires some confidence that it is consistent with more conventional SFR diagnostics in the nearby Universe. This paper compares standard SFR measurements based on Halpha, FUV and TIR galaxy luminosities with the observed CCSN rate in the same galaxy sample. The comparison can be viewed from two perspectives. Firstly, by adopting an estimate of the minimum stellar mass to produce a CCSN one can determine a SFR from SN numbers. Secondly, the radiative SFRs can be assumed to be robust and then the SN statistics provide a constrain on the minimum stellar mass for CCSN progenitors. The novel aspect of this study is that Halpha, FUV and TIR luminosities are now available for a complete galaxy sample within the local 11Mpc volume and the number of discovered SNe in this sample within the last 13 years is high enough to perform a meaningful statistical comparison. We exploit the multi-wavelength dataset from 11HUGS, a volume-limited survey designed to provide a census of SFR in the local Volume. Assuming a lower limit for CCSN progenitors of 8 Msun, the CCSN rate matches the SFR from the FUV luminosity. However the SFR based on Halpha luminosity is lower than these two estimates by a factor of nearly 2. If we assume that the FUV or Halpha based luminosities are a true reflection of the SFR, we find that the minimum mass for CCSN progenitors is 8 +/- 1 Msun, and 6 +/- 1 Msun, respectively. The estimate of the minimum mass for CCSN progenitors obtained exploiting FUV data is in good agreement with that from the direct detection of CCSN progenitors. The concordant results by these independent methods point toward a constraint of 8 +/- 1 Msun on the lower mass limit for progenitor stars of CCSNe.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.