pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27071 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

Recognition: unknown

Chaotic Molecular Gas in Five Dusty Star-forming Galaxies in the Spiderweb Protocluster at z = 2.16

Jaclyn B. Champagne , Helmut Dannerbauer , Jose Manuel Perez-Martinez , Caitlin M. Casey , Shuowen Jin , Matthew Lehnert , Jorge A. Zavala
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 09:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords Spiderweb protoclustermolecular gasdusty star-forming galaxieshigh-redshift galaxiesALMA observationsprotocluster environmentstar formation ratesCO emission
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gas fractions and specific star formation rates decline with distance from the central galaxy in the Spiderweb protocluster at z=2.16.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper uses ALMA to map carbon monoxide emission in five dusty star-forming galaxies located between 0.5 and 4 comoving megaparsecs from the core of the Spiderweb protocluster. These observations show that the galaxies have irregular gas motions and shapes that do not match simple rotating disks. Their molecular gas fractions and gas depletion times match those seen in galaxies outside dense regions at the same epoch. The most massive galaxies and those hosting X-ray active nuclei show lower gas fractions than the sample average. Gas fractions and specific star formation rates both fall as distance from the central Spiderweb Galaxy increases, which the authors interpret as evidence that the dense environment reverses the usual link between higher density and higher star formation at high redshift.

Core claim

All five galaxies display disturbed CO(3-2) kinematics, including non-Gaussian line profiles, irregular spatial distributions, and large residuals when modeled as classical disks. Molecular gas fractions average 49 percent but drop below 30 percent in the most massive systems and in X-ray AGN hosts. Both gas fractions and specific star formation rates decrease with projected distance from the Spiderweb Galaxy, consistent with a reversal of the star-formation-rate density-radius relation inside high-redshift protoclusters.

What carries the argument

ALMA CO(3-2) line observations that supply both total molecular gas masses (via luminosity and a conversion factor) and kinematic maps showing deviations from ordered rotation.

If this is right

  • The protocluster environment already modulates gas availability for star formation even several comoving megaparsecs from the core.
  • Elevated merger activity may be common in the outskirts, as suggested by the disturbed kinematics and multiple H-alpha companions.
  • Star formation in these galaxies is sustained by high gas reservoirs that scale with the observed star formation rates, matching field relations at cosmic noon.
  • X-ray AGN hosts and the most massive galaxies have already experienced reduced gas availability compared with less massive members.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Confirmation in larger samples would suggest that protoclusters at z approximately 2 begin to suppress star formation from the outside inward before full virialization.
  • The pattern may link to the assembly history of present-day galaxy clusters, where outer galaxies experience different gas processing than the core.
  • Higher-resolution imaging of the companions could test whether the kinematic chaos arises from ongoing interactions rather than internal processes.

Load-bearing premise

The observed decline in gas fraction and specific star formation rate with distance is caused by the protocluster environment rather than selection effects in a small sample, and the CO(3-2) emission traces the total molecular gas mass with a constant conversion factor across all galaxies.

What would settle it

A larger sample of galaxies at comparable redshifts and distances that shows no radial decline in gas fraction or specific star formation rate would indicate the trend is not a general feature of the protocluster environment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27071 by Caitlin M. Casey, Helmut Dannerbauer, Jaclyn B. Champagne, Jorge A. Zavala, Jose Manuel Perez-Martinez, Matthew Lehnert, Shuowen Jin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Background: CO(1 − 0) mosaic from COALAS (S. Jin et al. 2021) centered on the redshift of the Spiderweb Galaxy, z = 2.16. The pink stars denote the locations of the five primary DSFGs for which we present new CO(3−2) data from ALMA. The cyan stars mark positions of CO(1 − 0) detections from (S. Jin et al. 2021) for which we also extract CO(3 − 2) spectra, where a filled marker indicates a detection of CO(3… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Left: Background: 10′′×10′′ moment-0 maps integrated across the channels shaded in yellow in the right panel. The pink contours trace 3-10σ significance in steps of 1σ for CO(3 − 2). The smoothed yellow contours show CO(1 − 0) from ATCA (S. Jin et al. 2021) at the same significance levels. The LABOCA position is shown as a cyan star. HAEs from J. M. P´erez-Mart´ınez et al. (2023) are shown with green squar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ALMA CO(3 − 2) (black) and ATCA CO(1 − 0) spectra (purple) and moment-0 maps of the two COALAS (S. Jin et al. 2021) detected in our data: COALAS-SW.15 and COALAS-SW.02 (the Spiderweb Galaxy). Plot symbols are the same as in view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example fit of DKB01 using 3DBarolo. Each panel shows a 50×50 pixel cutout around the source, with the synthesized beam shown as the gold ellipse (note that the beam is different than in view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3D visualization plots generated with plotly. Here we convert the frequency axis to spatial assuming that ∆z = 0.01 is equivalent to 1.2 Mpc, converted into a spatial direction via the comoving distance. The left panel shows DKB01 and the right shows DKB12, both with pixel values below 3σ masked out. The surfaces show increasing significance of the emission as a fraction of the peak flux, i.e. from purple … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gas fraction as a function of stellar mass. For comparison we show the field scaling relation from N. Scoville et al. (2016) in grey, which shows main sequence galaxies in the filled region and starburst galaxies in the hatched region. Member galaxies of the Hyperion protocluster at z = 2.49 are shown in peach circles (J. A. Zavala et al. 2019) while the Hyperion core at z = 2.51 (J. B. Champagne et al. 20… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Star formation efficiency, defined as SFR versus gas mass. The field scaling relation for z = 2 galaxies is shown in filled grey (N. Scoville et al. 2016). The Hyperion protocluster (circles and upper limits) and its core (stars) at z = 2.5 are shown in peach (J. A. Zavala et al. 2019; J. B. Champagne et al. 2021), with other z ∼ 2 protoclusters in light blue (K.-i. Tadaki et al. 2019; J. A. Zavala et al. … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: Specific star formation rate (sSFR) of Spiderweb protocluster galaxies as a function of transverse distance from the Spiderweb Galaxy. We display the DSFGs from this work (green; X-ray sources with purple ×), HAEs detected in CO(3−2) from K.-i. Tadaki et al. (2019) (pink), and HAEs with no recorded CO(3−2) observations from J. M. P´erez-Mart´ınez et al. (2023) (blue). Right: Gas fraction (measured fr… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top: The stellar mass surface density pro￾file of DSFGs and HAEs in the Spiderweb protocluster that have log(M∗/M⊙)>10 and measurements of CO(3-2). For reference, we show the generalized NFW profiles for clus￾ters at z ∼ 1 and z ∼ 0.15 from R. F. J. van der Burg et al. (2014, 2015), converted to physical units assuming M200 = 3 × 1014 M⊙ at z = 1 and M200 = 9 × 1014 M⊙ at z = 0.15. We also show the fit NFW… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example fit of DKB03 using 3DBarolo. Each panel is a 50×50 pixel cutout of the non-uv-tapered data, with the beam size in gold in the bottom corners. The top row shows the integrated flux (moment 0), the middle row shows the velocity field (moment 1), and the bottom row shows the velocity dispersion (moment 2). From left to right, we show the data (masked down to SNR=3), the 3DBarolo model, and the residu… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Example fit of DKB12 using 3DBarolo. Same as above figure view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Example fit of HAE229 using 3DBarolo. Same as above figure view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Measuring the properties of cold molecular gas available for intense star formation in galaxy protoclusters at $z>2$ is a crucial step in understanding large scale structure formation. We present ALMA observations of CO(3$-$2) in five dusty star-forming galaxies within $\sim0.5-4$ cMpc of the core of the Spiderweb protocluster at $z=2.16$ to measure the molecular gas mass and kinematics in the most starbursting members of the protocluster. All five galaxies exhibit evidence for disturbed kinematics including non-Gaussian CO line profiles, irregular spatial morphology, and strong residuals when fitting the galaxies with a classical disk model. This could be indicative of an elevated merger rate in the outskirts of the mature Spiderweb protocluster, as all of the galaxies in our sample have multiple companions detected in H$\alpha$. Both the gas fractions and the gas depletion timescales of the galaxies are similar to field relations at cosmic noon, indicative of the fact that their prodigious star formation rates are compensated by similarly high gas masses. The most massive galaxies, as well as all of the galaxies identified as X-ray AGN in previous works, have gas fractions $<30$%, compared to the sample average of 49%, indicating declining availability of gas for star formation. Finally, we find that the gas fractions and specific star formation rates decline with distance from the Spiderweb Galaxy, supporting the reversal of the SFR density--radius relation in high-redshift protoclusters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents new ALMA Band 3 observations of CO(3-2) in five dusty star-forming galaxies located 0.5–4 cMpc from the core of the Spiderweb protocluster at z = 2.16. All five sources show disturbed kinematics (non-Gaussian line profiles, irregular morphologies, and strong residuals from rotating-disk fits), with multiple Hα companions noted. Molecular gas masses are derived, yielding a sample-average gas fraction of 49 % that drops below 30 % in the most massive systems and X-ray AGN hosts; gas fractions and sSFR are reported to decline with projected distance from the Spiderweb Galaxy, interpreted as evidence for a reversal of the SFR-density–radius relation at high redshift. Gas fractions and depletion times are stated to be consistent with field relations at cosmic noon.

Significance. If the radial decline is robust, the work supplies direct molecular-gas constraints on environmental processing in a mature z ≈ 2 protocluster, highlighting possible differences from lower-redshift clusters. The new ALMA CO(3-2) data on these specific starburst members constitute a useful addition to the sparse high-z protocluster gas census, and the uniform finding of disturbed kinematics across the sample is a clear observational result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Results] Abstract and final results paragraph: the headline claim that gas fractions and sSFR decline with distance from the Spiderweb Galaxy rests on five points selected as the brightest CO sources. No Pearson/Spearman coefficient, p-value, or bootstrap uncertainty on the slope is reported, leaving open whether the trend is statistically significant or an artifact of small-number statistics and the dusty-starburst selection criterion.
  2. [Methods / Results] Methods (gas-mass derivation): molecular gas masses are obtained from CO(3-2) luminosities using an implicit constant CO-to-H2 conversion factor. The sample contains mergers (disturbed kinematics) and X-ray AGN, both known to alter α_CO; no justification, literature range, or sensitivity test for this assumption is supplied, directly affecting the reported gas fractions and the radial trend.
  3. [Kinematics analysis] Kinematics section: the conclusion that all five galaxies are dynamically disturbed relies on non-Gaussian profiles and 'strong residuals' from classical disk models. Quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced χ², residual velocity maps, or formal model-comparison statistics) and the exact fitting procedure are not detailed, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the 'disturbed' classification.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that gas fractions and depletion timescales are 'similar to field relations' but does not cite the specific field samples or relations used for comparison.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions should explicitly state the synthesized beam size, rms noise, and whether the displayed CO maps are primary-beam corrected.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments. We agree that additional statistical quantification, sensitivity tests on the CO conversion factor, and expanded methodological details will improve the manuscript. We respond to each major comment below and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Results] Abstract and final results paragraph: the headline claim that gas fractions and sSFR decline with distance from the Spiderweb Galaxy rests on five points selected as the brightest CO sources. No Pearson/Spearman coefficient, p-value, or bootstrap uncertainty on the slope is reported, leaving open whether the trend is statistically significant or an artifact of small-number statistics and the dusty-starburst selection criterion.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the sample comprises the five brightest CO detections and that N=5 limits statistical power. In the revised manuscript we will add the Spearman rank correlation coefficient, its p-value, and bootstrap-derived uncertainties on the slope for both gas fraction and sSFR versus projected distance. We will also explicitly note the CO-bright selection in the text. If the correlation falls short of conventional significance thresholds we will rephrase the abstract and conclusions to describe the trend as tentative rather than definitive, while still reporting the observed decline. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / Results] Methods (gas-mass derivation): molecular gas masses are obtained from CO(3-2) luminosities using an implicit constant CO-to-H2 conversion factor. The sample contains mergers (disturbed kinematics) and X-ray AGN, both known to alter α_CO; no justification, literature range, or sensitivity test for this assumption is supplied, directly affecting the reported gas fractions and the radial trend.

    Authors: We agree that α_CO can be lower in mergers and AGN hosts. The revised version will state the adopted value (4.36 M⊙ (K km s⁻¹ pc²)⁻¹, standard for high-z star-forming galaxies), cite supporting literature for DSFGs, and include a sensitivity test using a ULIRG-like α_CO = 0.8. We will show the resulting range in gas fractions and re-evaluate whether the radial decline and the <30 % values in massive/AGN systems remain qualitatively intact. This will quantify the systematic uncertainty. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Kinematics analysis] Kinematics section: the conclusion that all five galaxies are dynamically disturbed relies on non-Gaussian profiles and 'strong residuals' from classical disk models. Quantitative metrics (e.g., reduced χ², residual velocity maps, or formal model-comparison statistics) and the exact fitting procedure are not detailed, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the 'disturbed' classification.

    Authors: We will expand the kinematics section with a full description of the fitting procedure (including the specific disk model, fitting code, and free parameters), reduced-χ² values for each source, and quantitative characterization of the residuals. Residual velocity maps will be added to the figures or appendix so readers can directly evaluate the strength of the deviations from rotation. These additions will make the disturbed classification reproducible and more rigorous. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in this observational study

full rationale

The paper reports direct ALMA CO(3-2) observations of five galaxies, deriving molecular gas masses, gas fractions, depletion times, and kinematics from the data. The central claim of a radial decline in gas fraction and sSFR is a straightforward comparison of these measured quantities against projected distance from the Spiderweb Galaxy, with no intervening model equations, parameter fits, or predictions. No self-definitional loops, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The interpretation that this supports a reversal of the SFR density-radius relation is presented as an observational trend, not a mathematical result forced by the paper's own inputs or prior self-citations. This is a standard observational analysis with independent content from the data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the standard assumption that CO(3-2) luminosity can be converted to molecular gas mass with a fixed conversion factor and that non-Gaussian line profiles plus irregular morphology indicate disturbed kinematics from mergers or interactions. No ad-hoc parameters or new physical entities are introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • CO-to-H2 conversion factor
    Standard but uncertain factor used to derive molecular gas masses from CO luminosity; value and any variation across the sample not specified in abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption CO(3-2) emission reliably traces the total molecular hydrogen reservoir
    Invoked to interpret line luminosities as gas masses available for star formation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5613 in / 1419 out tokens · 61454 ms · 2026-05-07T09:36:01.884129+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2022, Univ, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554 ´Alvarez-M´ arquez, J., Colina, L., Crespo-Gomez, A., et al

    Alberts, S., & Noble, A. 2022, Universe, 8, 554, doi: 10.3390/universe8110554 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.3390/universe8110554 2022

  2. [2]

    2022 , month = dec, journal =

    Boselli, A., Fossati, M., & Sun, M. 2022, A&A Rv, 30, 3, doi: 10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-022-00140-3 2022

  3. [3]

    S., Smail, I., Chapman, S

    Bothwell, M. S., Smail, I., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 3047, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts562

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts562 2013

  4. [4]

    L., Riechers, D., Walter, F., et al

    Carilli, C. L., Riechers, D., Walter, F., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, 120, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/763/2/120 CASA Team, Bean, B., Bhatnagar, S., et al. 2022, PASP, 134, 114501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ac9642

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/763/2/120 2013

  5. [5]

    Dusty Star-Forming Galaxies at High Redshift

    Casey, C. M., Narayanan, D., & Cooray, A. 2014, PhR, 541, 45, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009

    work page Pith review doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2014.02.009 2014

  6. [6]

    B., Casey, C

    Champagne, J. B., Casey, C. M., Zavala, J. A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 913, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf4e6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4e6 2021

  7. [7]

    B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al

    Champagne, J. B., Wang, F., Zhang, H., et al. 2025, ApJ, 981, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb1bd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb1bd 2025

  8. [8]

    C., Blain, A., Ibata, R., et al

    Chapman, S. C., Blain, A., Ibata, R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 691, 560, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/691/1/560

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/1/560 2009

  9. [9]

    D., et al

    Chen, Z., Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 8950, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3128

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3128 2024

  10. [10]

    2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    Chiang, Y.-K., Overzier, R., & Gebhardt, K. 2013, ApJ, 779, 127, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/779/2/127

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/2/127 2013

  11. [11]

    A., Stott, J

    Collins, C. A., Stott, J. P., Hilton, M., et al. 2009, Nature, 458, 603, doi: 10.1038/nature07865

    work page doi:10.1038/nature07865 2009

  12. [12]

    2007, MNRAS, 378, 910, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x

    Cooper, M. C., Newman, J. A., Weiner, B. J., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 383, 1058, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12613.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12613.x 2008

  13. [13]

    D., De Breuck, C., et al

    Dannerbauer, H., Kurk, J. D., De Breuck, C., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423771

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423771 2014

  14. [14]

    D., Emonts, B., et al

    Dannerbauer, H., Lehnert, M. D., Emonts, B., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A48, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201730449

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201730449 2017

  15. [15]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 316, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3810 Di Mascolo, L., Saro, A., Mroczkowski, T., et al

    Dekel, A., Mandelker, N., Bournaud, F., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 316, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3810 Di Mascolo, L., Saro, A., Mroczkowski, T., et al. 2023, Nature, 615, 809, doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-05761-x Di Teodoro, E. M., & Fraternali, F. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3021, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1213

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3810 2022

  16. [16]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Feain, I., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 430, 3465, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt147

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt147 2013

  17. [17]

    Emonts, B. H. C., Lehnert, M. D., Villar-Mart´ ın, M., et al. 2016, Science, 354, 1128, doi: 10.1126/science.aag0512 F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Genzel, R., Bouch´ e, N., et al. 2009, ApJ, 706, 1364, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/706/2/1364

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aag0512 2016

  18. [18]

    , keywords =

    Genzel, R., Tacconi, L. J., Combes, F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 746, 69, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/69

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/746/1/69 2012

  19. [19]

    C., Vishwas, A., Man, A

    Harrington, K. C., Vishwas, A., Man, A. W. S., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A298, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555071

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555071 2025

  20. [20]

    2012, MNRAS, 420, 1825, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19805.x

    Hatch, N. A., Kurk, J. D., Pentericci, L., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2993, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18735.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18735.x 2011

  21. [21]

    M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al

    Helton, J. M., Sun, F., Woodrum, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 974, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6867 2024

  22. [22]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 3124–3159, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1275

    Hill, R., Chapman, S., Scott, D., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 3124, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1275

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa1275 2020

  23. [23]

    C., et al

    Hughes, C., Hill, R., Chapman, S. C., et al. 2025, ApJL, 983, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c9 CO(3−2) in Spiderweb SMGs19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adc1c9 2025

  24. [24]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  25. [25]

    R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C

    Hunter, T. R., Indebetouw, R., Brogan, C. L., et al. 2023, PASP, 135, 074501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ace216

    work page doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ace216 2023

  26. [26]

    2021, A&A, 652, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040232

    Jin, S., Dannerbauer, H., Emonts, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 652, A11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202040232

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202040232 2021

  27. [27]

    B., Magdis, G

    Jin, S., Sillassen, N. B., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 683, L4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348540

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348540 2024

  28. [28]

    The ALPINE-ALMA [C <scp>ii</scp>] Survey: kinematic diversity and rotation in massive star-forming galaxies at z 4.4–5.9 , volume=

    Jones, G. C., Vergani, D., Romano, M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2226

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2226 2021

  29. [29]

    C., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al

    Jones, G. C., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.05213, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.05213

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.05213 2025

  30. [30]

    2019, ApJ, 879, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab223a

    Kirkpatrick, A., Sharon, C., Keller, E., & Pope, A. 2019, ApJ, 879, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab223a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab223a 2019

  31. [31]

    2013, MNRAS, 428, 1551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts133

    Koyama, Y., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 1551, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts133

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts133 2013

  32. [32]

    V., & Borgani, S

    Kravtsov, A. V., & Borgani, S. 2012, ARAA, 50, 353, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125502 2012

  33. [33]

    D., Pentericci, L., Overzier, R

    Kurk, J. D., Pentericci, L., Overzier, R. A., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., & Miley, G. K. 2004, A&A, 428, 817, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20041819

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20041819 2004

  34. [34]

    D., R¨ ottgering, H

    Kurk, J. D., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Pentericci, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 358, L1, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0005058

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0005058 2000

  35. [35]

    S., Cooray, A., Ma, J., et al

    Long, A. S., Cooray, A., Ma, J., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 133, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d1f 2020

  36. [36]

    Cosmic Star Formation History

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    work page Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  37. [37]

    K., Overzier, R

    Miley, G. K., Overzier, R. A., Zirm, A. W., et al. 2006, ApJL, 650, L29, doi: 10.1086/508534

    work page doi:10.1086/508534 2006

  38. [38]

    B., Chapman, S

    Miller, T. B., Chapman, S. C., Aravena, M., et al. 2018, Nature, 556, 469, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0025-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0025-2 2018

  39. [39]

    2024, ApJ, 977, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dcf

    Naufal, A., Koyama, Y., D’Eugenio, C., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 58, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dcf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8dcf 2024

  40. [40]

    J., Dunne, L., et al

    Oteo, I., Ivison, R. J., Dunne, L., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1f1

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa1f1 2018

  41. [41]

    Overzier, R. A. 2016, A&A Rv, 24, 14, doi: 10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00159-016-0100-3 2016

  42. [42]

    Papovich, C., Momcheva, I., Willmer, C. N. A., et al. 2010, ApJ, 716, 1503, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/716/2/1503

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/716/2/1503 2010

  43. [43]

    D., R¨ ottgering, H

    Pentericci, L., Kurk, J. D., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2000, A&A, 361, L25, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0008143 P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., Dannerbauer, H., Kodama, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 1707, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2784 P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., Dannerbauer, H., Koyama, Y., et al. 2024, ApJ, 977, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8156 P´ erez-Mar...

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0008143 2000

  44. [44]

    2022, A&A, 662, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142659

    Perna, M., Arribas, S., Colina, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A94, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142659

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142659 2022

  45. [45]

    2012, MNRAS, 423, 600, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20901.x

    Popping, G., Caputi, K. I., Somerville, R. S., & Trager, S. C. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 2386, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21702.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21702.x 2012

  46. [46]

    2024, ApJ, 968, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad488a

    Pudoka, M., Wang, F., Fan, X., et al. 2024, ApJ, 968, 118, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad488a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad488a 2024

  47. [47]

    Remus, R.-S., & Kimmig, L. C. 2025, ApJ, 982, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b4b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8b4b 2025

  48. [48]

    Evolution of turbulence in galaxy disks across cosmic time: Difference between cold and warm gas

    Rizzo, F., Bacchini, C., Kohandel, M., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A273, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450455

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450455 2024

  49. [49]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa87b2

    Rudnick, G., Hodge, J., Walter, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 849, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa87b2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa87b2 2017

  50. [50]

    , keywords =

    Scoville, N., Sheth, K., Aussel, H., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 83, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/83

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/83 2016

  51. [51]

    2015, MNRAS, 448, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv051

    Shimakawa, R., Kodama, T., Tadaki, K.-i., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 666, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv051

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv051 2015

  52. [52]

    Shimakawa, R., Koyama, Y., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2618

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2618 2018

  53. [53]

    M., Dannerbauer, H., et al

    Shimakawa, R., P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., Dannerbauer, H., et al. 2024a, ApJ, 977, 73, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad8155

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad8155

  54. [54]

    M., Koyama, Y., et al

    Shimakawa, R., P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., Koyama, Y., et al. 2024b, MNRAS, 528, 3679, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae118

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae118

  55. [55]

    B., Jin, S., Magdis, G

    Sillassen, N. B., Jin, S., Magdis, G. E., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A55, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450760

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202450760 2024

  56. [56]

    L., & Haiman, Z

    Skibba, R. A., Bamford, S. P., Nichol, R. C., et al. 2009, MNRAS, 399, 966, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15334.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15334.x 2009

  57. [57]

    , keywords =

    Solomon, P. M., Downes, D., Radford, S. J. E., & Barrett, J. W. 1997, ApJ, 478, 144, doi: 10.1086/303765

    work page doi:10.1086/303765 1997

  58. [58]

    , keywords =

    Steidel, C. C., Adelberger, K. L., Dickinson, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 492, 428, doi: 10.1086/305073

    work page doi:10.1086/305073 1998

  59. [59]

    A., Ivison, R

    Stevens, J. A., Ivison, R. J., Dunlop, J. S., et al. 2003, Nature, 425, 264, doi: 10.1038/nature01976

    work page doi:10.1038/nature01976 2003

  60. [60]

    2024, ApJL, 967, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4986

    Sun, H., Wang, T., Xu, K., et al. 2024, ApJL, 967, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad4986

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad4986 2024

  61. [61]

    M., et al

    Tacchella, S., Dekel, A., Carollo, C. M., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 242, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw303

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw303 2016

  62. [62]

    J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al

    Tacconi, L. J., Genzel, R., Saintonge, A., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 179, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4b4 2018

  63. [63]

    2019, PASJ, 71, 40, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz005

    Tadaki, K.-i., Kodama, T., Hayashi, M., et al. 2019, PASJ, 71, 40, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psz005

    work page doi:10.1093/pasj/psz005 2019

  64. [64]

    2022, A&A, 662, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142333

    Tozzi, P., Pentericci, L., Gilli, R., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A54, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142333

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142333 2022

  65. [65]

    2025, ApJL, 985, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add1d4

    Umehata, H., Kubo, M., & Nakanishi, K. 2025, ApJL, 985, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/add1d4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/add1d4 2025

  66. [66]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 815, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L8

    Umehata, H., Tamura, Y., Kohno, K., et al. 2015, ApJL, 815, L8, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/L8 van der Burg, R. F. J., Hoekstra, H., Muzzin, A., et al. 2015, A&A, 577, A19, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201425460 20 van der Burg, R. F. J., Muzzin, A., Hoekstra, H., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, A79, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322771 van der Burg, R. F. J., Muzzin, A., ...

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/815/1/l8 2015

  67. [67]

    P., R¨ ottgering, H

    Venemans, B. P., R¨ ottgering, H. J. A., Miley, G. K., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 823, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053941

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20053941 2007

  68. [68]

    The assembly and star formation cessation of galaxies at 0.2< z 7.5

    Weaver, J. R., Davidzon, I., Toft, S., et al. 2023, A&A, 677, A184, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245581

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245581 2023

  69. [69]

    , keywords =

    Wisnioski, E., F¨ orster Schreiber, N. M., Wuyts, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 209, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/799/2/209

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/799/2/209 2015

  70. [70]

    A., Casey, C

    Zavala, J. A., Casey, C. M., Scoville, N., et al. 2019, ApJ, 887, 183, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5302

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5302 2019

  71. [71]

    , keywords =

    Zhang, Y., Zheng, X. Z., Shi, D. D., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac824

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac824 2022

  72. [72]

    H., Dannerbauer, H., P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J

    Zhang, Y. H., Dannerbauer, H., P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A22, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451379

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451379 2024

  73. [73]

    H., Dannerbauer, H., P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J

    Zhang, Y. H., Dannerbauer, H., P´ erez-Mart´ ınez, J. M., et al. 2026, A&A, 706, A9, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556611

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556611 2026

  74. [74]

    C., Aravena, M., et al

    Zhou, D., Chapman, S. C., Aravena, M., et al. 2026, Nature, 649, 1130, doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09901-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09901-3 2026

  75. [75]

    2025, A&A, 701, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553996 CO(3−2) in Spiderweb SMGs21 APPENDIX A.3DBAROLO FITS In this Section we display the 3DBarolo fits for each DSFG

    Zhou, L., Wang, T., Daddi, E., et al. 2025, A&A, 701, A234, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202553996 CO(3−2) in Spiderweb SMGs21 APPENDIX A.3DBAROLO FITS In this Section we display the 3DBarolo fits for each DSFG. Note that the fit failed for DKB16 and COALAS.SW15 altogether due to low SNR, so we do not display plots for these two sources. 0 10 20 30 40 50 DATA I...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202553996 2025