Paper detail

The SEDIGISM survey: Molecular cloud morphology. I. Classification and star formation

We present one of the very first extensive classifications of a large sample of molecular clouds based on their morphology. This is achieved using a recently published catalogue of 10663 clouds obtained from the first data release of the SEDIGISM survey. The clouds are classified into four different morphologies by visual inspection and using an automated algorithm -- J plots. The visual inspection also serves as a test for the J plots algorithm, as this is the first time it has been used on molecular gas. Generally, it has been found that the structure of molecular clouds is highly filamentary and our observations indeed verify that most of our molecular clouds are elongated structures. Based on our visual classification of the 10663 SEDIGISM clouds, 15% are ring-like, 57% are elongated, 15% are concentrated and 10% are clumpy clouds. The remaining clouds do not belong to any of these morphology classes and are termed unclassified. We compare the SEDIGISM molecular clouds with structures identified through other surveys, i.e. ATLASGAL elongated structures and the bubbles from Milky Way Project (MWP). We find that many of the ATLASGAL and MWP structures are velocity coherent. ATLASGAL elongated structures overlap with ~ 21% of the SEDIGISM elongated structures (elongated and clumpy clouds) and MWP bubbles overlap with ~ 25% of the SEDIGISM ring-like clouds. We also analyse the star-formation associated with different cloud morphologies using two different techniques. The first technique examines star formation efficiency (SFE) and the dense gas fraction (DGF), based on SEDIGISM clouds and ATLASGAL clumps data. The second technique uses the high-mass star formation (HMSF) threshold for molecular clouds. The results indicate that clouds with ring-like and clumpy morphologies show a higher degree of star formation.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.

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.