Paper detail

Are $^{12}$CO lines good indicators of the star formation rate in galaxies?

In this paper, we investigate the relevance of using the $^{12}$CO line emissions as indicators of star formation rates (SFR). For the first time, we present this study for a relatively large number of $^{12}$CO transitions (12) as well as over a large interval in redshift (from z$\sim$0 to z$\sim$6). For the nearby sources (D$\leq$10 Mpc), we have used homogeneous sample of $^{12}$CO data provided by Bayet et al. (2004, 2006), mixing observational and modelled line intensities. For higher-z sources (z $\geq$ 1), we have collected $^{12}$CO observations from various papers and have completed the data set of line intensities with model predictions which we also present in this paper. Finally, for increasing the statistics, we have included recent $^{12}$CO(1-0) and $^{12}$CO(3-2) observations of intermediate-z sources. Linear regressions have been calculated for identifying the tightest SFR-$^{12}$CO line luminosity relationships. We show that the \emph{total} $^{12}$CO, the $^{12}$CO(5-4), the $^{12}$CO(6-5) and the $^{12}$CO(7-6) luminosities are the best indicators of SFR (as measured by the far-infrared luminosity). Comparisons with theoretical approaches from Krumholz and Thompson (2007) and Narayanan et al. (2008) are also performed in this paper. Although in general agreement, the predictions made by these authors and the observational results we present here show small and interesting discrepancies. In particular, the slope of the linear regressions, for J$_{upper}\geq$ 4 $^{12}$CO lines are not similar between theoretical studies and observations. On one hand, a larger high-J $^{12}$CO data set of observations might help to better agree with models, increasing the statistics. On the other hand, theoretical studies extended to high redshift sources might also reduce such discrepancies.

preprint2009arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.