Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 191 references

KFPA Examinations of Young STellar Object Natal Environments (KEYSTONE): Hierarchical Ammonia Structures in Galactic Giant Molecular Clouds

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The KEYSTONE survey of ammonia in eleven galactic giant molecular clouds finds that about 63% of the 835 dense clumps with mass estimates are gravitationally bound (virial parameter below two), and that clumps on and off dust filaments…

desk verdict The survey is a genuine data release with honest caveats, but the headline 63% bound fraction is an upper limit in disguise because it rests on upper-limit masses. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10514 v2 pith:ET3AF32L submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Jared Keown , James Di Francesco , Erik Rosolowsky , Ayushi Singh , Charles Figura , Helen Kirk , L. D. Anderson , Michael Chun-Yuan Chen
show 18 more authors
Davide Elia Rachel Friesen Adam Ginsburg A. Marston Stefano Pezzuto Eugenio Schisano Sylvain Bontemps Paola Caselli Hong-Li Liu Steven Longmore Frederique Motte Philip C. Myers Stella S. R. Offner Patricio Sanhueza Nicola Schneider Ian Stephens James Urquhart the KEYSTONE collaboration
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords giantmolecularcloudsammoniavirialparameterdenseclumpsfilamentsdendrogramshigh-massstarformationHerschel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The KEYSTONE survey maps ammonia (1,1) and (2,2) emission across eleven giant molecular clouds between 0.9 and 3.0 kpc and identifies 856 dense gas clumps with a dendrogram analysis. The paper's central claim is that 523 of the 835 clumps with mass estimates (about 63%) have virial parameters below two, meaning gravity alone is strong enough to bind them, and that this bound fraction does not depend on whether a clump sits on a dust-continuum filament. The result matters because it extends core-scale virial statistics from nearby low-mass clouds to the clouds that dominate Galactic star formation, and it suggests that filaments are not a prerequisite for forming bound dense clumps in these environments. The paper also identifies massive, low-virial 'hubs' and 'ridges' that sit at filament intersections or within single filaments and meet empirical criteria for future massive-star or cluster formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the virial parameter $\alpha_{\rm vir} = M_{\rm vir}/M_{\rm obs}$, with $M_{\rm vir} = 5\sigma^2 R/(aG)$, where $\sigma$ is the total (thermal plus nonthermal) velocity dispersion, $R$ is the effective radius, and $a$ accounts for the radial power-law density profile ($\rho \propto r^{-1.5}$); structures with $\alpha_{\rm vir} < 2$ are called gravitationally bound. Masses come from summing Herschel H$_2$ column density inside dendrogram 'leaf' masks, and line widths come from single-velocity-component LTE fits to ammonia hyperfine spectra. The virial comparison is what turns maps of temperature, velocity dispersion, and column density into a statement about which structures can collapse.

What would settle it

Recompute the virial parameters using the clipped (background-subtracted) leaf masses instead of the integrated column-density masses. If the median factor-of-five mass reduction is applied, most of the 523 clumps with $\alpha_{\rm vir} < 2$ would move above $\alpha_{\rm vir} = 2$, directly testing whether the 63% bound fraction is an artifact of the mass definition.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper reports that the majority of ammonia-identified clumps in its sample are gravitationally bound: 523 out of 835 (about 63%) have virial parameter $\alpha_{\rm vir} < 2$, using masses from integrated Herschel H$_2$ column density and line widths from NH$_3$ (1,1)/(2,2) fits. The bound fraction is nearly identical for on-filament clumps (about 65%) and off-filament clumps, and the mass, radius, temperature, and velocity dispersion distributions of the two populations are indistinguishable. In addition, a subset of unusually massive clumps ('hubs' and 'ridges') have virial parameters 0.2--0.5 and lie above the empirical massive-star threshold, typically hosting water masers and multiple 70 $\mu$m protostars.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that summing all Herschel column density inside each dendrogram mask gives a mass close to the true clump mass, although the paper notes this is likely an upper limit and that 'clipped' masses are typically about five times lower; because $\alpha_{\rm vir} = M_{\rm vir}/M_{\rm obs}$, a factor-of-five smaller mass would raise the virial parameter by about a factor of five and could move most of the 523 'bound' clumps above the $\alpha_{\rm vir} = 2$ threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If gravity alone binds most dense ammonia clumps, magnetic fields and external pressure only push them further toward collapse, so the default expectation in these GMCs is continuing gravitational contraction rather than dispersal.
  • The near-identical virial parameters on and off filaments imply that filament membership is not a controlling variable for dense-clump stability in high-mass GMCs, weakening the case that star formation there is exclusively a filament-channeled process.
  • Hubs and ridges with $\alpha_{\rm vir} \approx 0.2$--$0.5$ and masses above the empirical $M(r) > 870\,M_\odot\,(r/{\rm pc})^{1.33}$ threshold are the most plausible precursors of massive stars and clusters in the sample.
  • Because distance-adjusted tests in the appendix show that lower resolution makes structures appear more bound, the cloud-to-cloud spread in bound fraction (0.3 to 0.9) is partly a resolution effect, not purely an environmental difference.
  • Most clumps (about 69%) are sub-virial once cloud weight pressure is included, so the dense clumps in GMCs are typically pressure-confined structures that may later become gravity-dominated as they accrete.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the clipped masses are closer to the true clump masses, the headline bound fraction likely flips below 50%; this is an untested consequence of the paper's own mass uncertainty range.
  • The on/off-filament null result suggests that the 'mass flow along filaments' picture, while supported by hub observations, may not be required for clump-scale gravitational binding in massive GMCs; a direct test would be measuring whether off-filament clumps have different accretion rates than on-filament clumps.
  • The distance-resolution bias implies that unified comparisons of star formation efficiency across clouds require either common linear resolution or a resolution-dependent correction; upcoming high-resolution arrays could test whether W48-like clouds really contain more bound clumps.
  • Magnetic field support, not included in $\alpha_{\rm vir}$, would push the true bound fraction below 63% if fields are dynamically important in these environments.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents the first data release from the KEYSTONE survey, mapping NH3 (1,1) and (2,2) emission with the GBT KFPA across eleven Galactic giant molecular clouds. The authors fit the ammonia lines to produce temperature, centroid velocity, velocity dispersion, and column-density maps, then use dendrograms on the integrated intensity maps to define 856 clumps (leaves). For 835 clumps with Herschel-based masses, they compute virial parameters and report that ~63% (523) have alpha_vir < 2 and are therefore 'bound by gravity alone.' They compare clump properties on and off dust-continuum filaments, finding no significant differences, and identify a population of massive hubs/ridges that coincide with water masers, multiple 70 micron protostars, and the Kauffmann-Pillai massive-star-formation threshold. The paper also estimates cloud-weight and turbulent pressure contributions to virial stability for subsets of the sample.

Significance. If the central quantitative claims hold, this is one of the largest homogeneous samples of virial parameters for dense ammonia clumps in high-mass star-forming regions, and it provides useful constraints on how clump stability depends on filament association and environment. The survey data and catalogs are made public, the analysis uses established and well-described tools, and the appendix on distance-dependent resolution bias is a genuine strength. However, the headline 63% bound fraction is directly tied to the choice of mass estimator, and the paper itself supplies the evidence that this choice is the dominant systematic: the clipped masses are typically a factor of ~5 lower, which would raise alpha_vir by a comparable factor and likely move most of the 523 'bound' clumps above the alpha_vir = 2 threshold. The central claim therefore needs additional work before it can be considered supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.4, §3.5, Eq. (1)] The headline statistic that 523 of 835 clumps (~63%) are gravitationally bound is not robust to the mass-estimator uncertainty that the authors themselves describe. Section 3.4 states that summing all column density within leaf boundaries is 'likely an upper limit' on the mass, and that the alternative clipped masses are 'typically a factor of ~5 (median) lower.' Because alpha_vir = Mvir/Mobs directly, a factor-of-five lower Mobs would raise alpha_vir by approximately a factor of five. Most of the 523 leaves currently in the 0.4 < alpha_vir < 2 range would then fall above alpha_vir = 2. The W3-west catalog in Table 5 illustrates the point: the listed alpha values are mostly 0.67-1.82, so multiplying by ~5 leaves essentially none bound. The paper adopts the integrated masses throughout and does not propagate the clipped-mass systematic into the global 63% fraction, the per-cloud bound fractions in Table 6, or the correlation between bound fraction and protostellar surface density in §3.7. The authors should present the virial-parameter distributions and bound fractions for both mass estimators, or otherwise justify why the upper-limit masses should be preferred for this specific statistic.
  2. [§3.1, Table 6] The single-component NH3 fitting approximation is acknowledged to broaden fitted line widths in W48 and M17, where the highest bound fractions (0.89 and 0.87, respectively) are reported. Broadened line widths inflate Mvir and therefore alpha_vir, which means the true bound fractions for those clouds may be even higher than reported; however, this effect does not offset the mass-estimator systematic, and it introduces a separate, unquantified bias into the per-cloud and global bound fractions. The paper defers multiple-velocity-component fitting to a future paper, but a quantitative estimate of how many leaves in W48 and M17 are affected is needed before those clouds can be used to support the headline bound-fraction claim.
  3. [Appendix A, §3.5, Summary item 2] The distance-bias analysis in Appendix A shows that degrading the closest clouds to the W48 linear resolution causes essentially all identified structures to appear bound, and the text correctly notes that this may inflate the bound fraction in W48 and M17. This is an important caveat, but it is not carried into the abstract or Summary item 2, which state the 63% figure without mentioning the resolution dependence or the mass-estimator dependence. The summary should be revised to state the bound fraction as conditional on the adopted upper-limit masses and on the native resolution, or to report the range obtained under the alternative mass and resolution choices.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.5, after Eq. (8)] The sentence 'converted into a turbulent pressure using Equations 5 and 9' appears to contain a reference error: the turbulent pressure P_T is defined in Equation 8, not Equation 9. Please check the equation numbering.
  2. [Table 4, column 14] The header 'Bad N(H2) Pixels' is described in the footnote as the 'fraction of pixels in the leaf that were saturated in the H2 column density map,' but the column appears to contain integer-like values in Table 5. Please clarify the units and formatting of this column.
  3. [Abstract and §4.1] The abstract says '40-100%' of clumps are aligned with filaments, while Table 6 and §4.1 report on-filament fractions from 0.35 in Cygnus X South to 1.0 in W3-west. The abstract should use the actual range (35-100%) or state the rounding convention.
  4. [§3.4, Figure 30] The power-law fit to the mass-radius relation is described as using an MCMC sampler with 'orthogonal least-squares likelihood function,' but the exact likelihood and treatment of measurement errors are not specified. A brief description or reference would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the virial parameters are measured from independent NH3 kinematics and Herschel column densities, with the mass-systematic caveat disclosed rather than hidden.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. Leaf masses come from summing Herschel-derived H2 column densities inside dendrogram masks ($\S$3.4), while virial masses come from Equation 1 using measured NH3 line widths and effective radii ($\S$3.5); the virial parameter is then the ratio $\alpha_{\rm vir}=M_{\rm vir}/M_{\rm obs}$. No parameter is fitted to the headline 63% bound fraction, and no prediction is constructed from a fitted subset. The upper-limit nature of the integrated leaf masses is explicitly disclosed ('Summing all the column density within the leaf boundaries is likely an upper limit on the mass of the structure', $\S$3.4), and the clipped lower-limit masses are reported in Table 4; the failure to propagate this systematic into the 63% statistic is a robustness limitation, not a circular reduction. The acknowledged single-component NH3 fitting issue in W48 and M17 ($\S$3.1) is likewise a stated systematic that broadens line widths, again not a circular step. Self-citations such as Keown et al. (2017) and Friesen et al. (2017) provide methodology and standard virial/pressure equations rather than load-bearing evidence for the central claims; those claims are checked against independent water maser emission, 70 $\mu$m protostar detections, and external catalogs (e.g., Kauffmann et al. 2013; Urquhart et al. 2015; Svoboda et al. 2016). The hub/ridge selection is based on unusually high mass, and the subsequent statements about their low virial parameters and association with masers/protostars are separate observations, not definitional equivalences. I find no instance where an equation is equivalent by construction to an input, no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain that forces the result.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard observational astrophysics assumptions: LTE ammonia modeling, a chosen density profile for virial masses, a dust opacity calibration for masses, and a set of structure-identification thresholds. The most consequential choices are the integrated (upper-limit) mass definition and the single-velocity-component assumption in the two most bound clouds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Virial density profile index k = 1.5
    Assumed power-law density profile ρ(r) ∝ r^-1.5 in the virial mass equation (Eqs. 1-2), adopted from dense-core observations. This sets the factor a in Mvir and therefore shifts every αvir value and the 63% bound fraction.
  • C18O traced volume density ρ_C18O = 3e4 cm^-3
    Assumed volume density for the C18O (3-2) emission used in the turbulent pressure term (Eq. 8), set to the critical density at 20 K. A factor-of-ten lower density changes the median pressure ratio from ~7 to ~0.7, so the pressure-dominated conclusion in §4.5 depends on this choice.
  • Dendrogram parameters (min_value, min_delta, min_npix) = 5×RMS, 2×RMS, 10 pixels
    Structure identification thresholds chosen for consistency with Friesen et al. (2016) and Keown et al. (2017). These thresholds define the clump sample and therefore all subsequent population statistics.
  • Mass estimation choice: integrated vs clipped column density = integrated (upper limit)
    Leaf masses sum all H2 column density inside the leaf mask, which the paper states is an upper limit; clipped masses are a median factor ~5 lower. Because αvir scales as M^-1, this choice directly controls the headline 63% bound fraction.
  • Cloud weight pressure filter scale = n = 4 or 16 pixels (a trous transform)
    Spatial filtering scale for the mean and local column densities in Eq. 7. The authors cite Kerr et al. (2019) that factor-two scale changes produce less than factor-two changes in P_w, which they argue does not alter the qualitative conclusions.
  • Bound threshold α_vir = 2
    Adopted from Bertoldi & McKee (1992) as the criterion for gravitational binding in the absence of magnetic fields and external pressure. This threshold is used to define the headline bound fraction of ~63%.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption NH3 line fitting assumes LTE and a single velocity component along the line of sight.
    Section 3.1: the coldammonia model assumes LTE and single-component fits. The paper explicitly notes that W48 and M17 show signs of multiple velocity components, which broaden the fitted line widths and bias the virial analysis in the most bound clouds.
  • domain assumption Virial analysis assumes spherical, isothermal, steady-state structures with a radial power-law density profile ρ(r) ∝ r^-1.5.
    Section 3.5: these assumptions are stated for Eqs. 1-2 and are motivated by observations of dense cores, but they are a simplification that affects all derived virial masses.
  • domain assumption H2 column densities are derived from modified blackbody SED fitting using a fixed dust opacity law and gas-to-dust ratio.
    Section 2.3: κλ = 0.1(λ/300μm)^-β cm^2/g following Hildebrand (1983) with a gas-to-dust ratio of 100. These calibrations directly set the leaf masses used in the virial analysis.
  • domain assumption The dust emissivity β is taken from Planck-derived dust models rather than fit to the Herschel data alone.
    Section 2.3: β values (1.2-2.0) are resampled from Planck maps to break the temperature-β degeneracy. The paper notes this choice lowers column densities by about a factor of 2.5 compared with the HOBYS β=2 maps.
  • domain assumption Selection thresholds define the analyzed sample: A_V > 10 mapping footprints, NH3 SNR > 3, and the seven parameter cuts in Section 3.1.
    Sections 2.2 and 3.1: these criteria determine which pixels and clumps enter the catalog. The cloud completeness ranges from 31% (M17) to 100%, so population statistics are conditional on the observed footprints.
  • standard math Cloud-level measurements in the correlation analysis are treated as independent data points.
    Section 3.7: Pearson correlation coefficients and significance thresholds assume 12 independent cloud measurements; the analysis does not account for shared spiral-arm membership or other environmental correlations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KFPA Examinations of Young STellar Object Natal Environments (KEYSTONE): Hierarchical Ammonia Structures in Galactic Giant Molecular Clouds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ET3AF32L

@misc{pith2026190810514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KFPA Examinations of Young STellar Object Natal Environments (KEYSTONE): Hierarchical Ammonia Structures in Galactic Giant Molecular Clouds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ET3AF32L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10514}
}
abstract

We present initial results from the K-band focal plane array Examinations of Young STellar Object Natal Environments (KEYSTONE) survey, a large project on the 100-m Green Bank Telescope mapping ammonia emission across eleven giant molecular clouds at distances of $0.9-3.0$ kpc (Cygnus X North, Cygnus X South, M16, M17, MonR1, MonR2, NGC2264, NGC7538, Rosette, W3, and W48). This data release includes the NH$_3$ (1,1) and (2,2) maps for each cloud, which are modeled to produce maps of kinetic temperature, centroid velocity, velocity dispersion, and ammonia column density. Median cloud kinetic temperatures range from $11.4\pm2.2$ K in the coldest cloud (MonR1) to $23.0\pm6.5$ K in the warmest cloud (M17). Using dendrograms on the NH$_3$ (1,1) integrated intensity maps, we identify 856 dense gas clumps across the eleven clouds. Depending on the cloud observed, $40-100\%$ of the clumps are aligned spatially with filaments identified in H$_2$ column density maps derived from SED-fitting of dust continuum emission. A virial analysis reveals that 523 of the 835 clumps ($\sim63\%$) with mass estimates are bound by gravity alone. We find no significant difference between the virial parameter distributions for clumps aligned with the dust-continuum filaments and those unaligned with filaments. In some clouds, however, hubs or ridges of dense gas with unusually high mass and low virial parameters are located within a single filament or at the intersection of multiple filaments. These hubs and ridges tend to host water maser emission, multiple 70$\mu$m-detected protostars, and have masses and radii above an empirical threshold for forming massive stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Beam gains for the NH3 (1,1) spectral windows (IFs 6, 7, and 8) averaged over all Moon observations for each feed and polarization. thorough maser identification technique to White et al. (in prep.). The NH3 data were reduced using gbtpipe1 , a Python-packaged version of the standard GBT reduction pipeline. The data were calibrated and output as 3D FITS spectral cubes, with R.A., Dec., and spectral frequency compr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Histograms of the RMS noise for the NH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Stacked histogram of the dust emissivity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (50 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Kinetic temperature (top) and NH3 (1,1) velocity dispersion (bottom) derived from NH3 (1,1) and (2,2) line fitting of the W3 observations. The black contours show the NH3 (1,1) integrated intensity at 1.0, 3.5, and 10 K km s−1 . The solid and dotted grey contours out…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Same as Figure 4 for W3-west [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Same as Figure 4 for MonR2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: — Same as Figure 4 for MonR1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: — Same as Figure 4 for Rosette [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: — Same as Figure 4 for NGC2264 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: — Same as Figure 4 for M16. The solid and dotted grey contours outline H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: — Same as Figure 4 for M17. The solid and dotted grey contours outline H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: — Same as Figure 10 for W48 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: — Same as Figure 4 for Cygnus X South. The solid and dotted grey contours outline H [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: — Same as Figure 13 for Cygnus X North [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: — Same as Figure 4 for NGC7538 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: — Histograms of kinetic temperature (left) and NH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: — NH3 (1,1) integrated intensity map for W3. Green contours outline leaves identified by a dendrogram analysis of the map that passed the culling criteria listed in Section 3.3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: — Same as Figure 17 for W3-west [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: — Same as Figure 17 for MonR2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: — Same as Figure 17 for MonR1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: — Same as Figure 17 for Rosette [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: — Same as Figure 17 for NGC2264 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: — Same as Figure 17 for M16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: — Same as Figure 17 for M17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: — Same as Figure 17 for W48 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: — Same as Figure 17 for Cygnus X South [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: — Same as Figure 17 for Cygnus X North [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: — Same as Figure 17 for NGC7538 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: — Dendrogram tree diagram for MonR2 showing the peak intensity for each structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: — Left: effective radius versus mass for the leaves identified in each region. The solid [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: — Virial parameter (αvir) versus mass for the leaves identified in each region. The dashed line denotes αvir = 2 when assuming a power-law density profile for the structures. Above this line, structures are deemed to be gravitationally unbound in the absence of magnet…
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: — Top Right: Herschel H2 column density map of W3 with positions of candidate YSOs identified by getsources at 70 µm overlaid as red dots. The outer grey outline denotes the area mapped by KEYSTONE. The grey contours show NH3 (1,1) integrated intensity at 1.0 K km s−1…
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: — Same as Figure 32 for W3-west [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_33.png]
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: — Same as Figure 32 for MonR2. Magenta contours on the left side of the upper left panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_34.png]
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: — Same as Figure 32 for MonR1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_35.png]
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: — Same as Figure 32 for Rosette [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_36.png]
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: — Same as Figure 32 for NGC2264 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_37.png]
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38: — Same as Figure 32 for M16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_38.png]
Figure 39
Figure 39. Figure 39: — Same as Figure 32 for M17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_39.png]
Figure 40
Figure 40. Figure 40: — Same as Figure 32 for W48 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_40.png]
Figure 41
Figure 41. Figure 41: — Same as Figure 34 for Cygnus X South [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_41.png]
Figure 42
Figure 42. Figure 42: — Same as Figure 34 for Cygnus X North [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_42.png]
Figure 43
Figure 43. Figure 43: — Same as Figure 32 for NGC7538 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p065_43.png]
Figure 44
Figure 44. Figure 44: — Heatmap of Pearson correlation coefficients for the ten variables of interest examined: leaf [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p068_44.png]
Figure 45
Figure 45. Figure 45: — Statistically significant correlations found from Figure 44 when neglecting data errorbars. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p069_45.png]
Figure 46
Figure 46. Figure 46: — Stacked histograms of mass (upper left), effective radius (upper right), average kinetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p072_46.png]
Figure 47
Figure 47. Figure 47: — Left: H2 column density map of NGC7538 with white contours at 4 × 1021 cm−2 and 8 × 1021 cm−2 . Black outlines the extent of the KEYSTONE mapping of the region. Right: Spatially filtered H2 column density map over the cyan dotted area overlaid in the left panel. The…
Figure 48
Figure 48. Figure 48: — Left: Virial plane for all ammonia-identified leaves displayed in Figure 31 showing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p077_48.png]
Figure 49
Figure 49. Figure 49: — C18O (3 − 2) velocity dispersion measured from Gaussian fits to JCMT observations of DR21 in Cygnus X North (top left), G79.34 in Cygnus X South (top right), W3(OH) (bottom left), and W3-Main (bottom right). Red contours denote ammonia-identified leaves that have at…
Figure 50
Figure 50. Figure 50: — Same as Figure 49 for M16 (top left), M17 (top right), and NGC7538 (bottom). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p082_50.png]
Figure 51
Figure 51. Figure 51: — Top row: Leaf virial parameters in NGC2264 using native KEYSTONE resolution (left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p096_51.png]
Figure 52
Figure 52. Figure 52: — Same as Figure 51 for MonR1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p097_52.png]
Figure 53
Figure 53. Figure 53: — Same as Figure 51 for MonR2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p098_53.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

191 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    T., Strom, K

    Adams, M. T., Strom, K. M., & Strom, S. E. 1979, ApJ, 230, L183 Andr´ e, P., Men’shchikov, A., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L102 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    1979

  2. [2]

    C., Basu, S., et al

    Auddy, S., Myers, P. C., Basu, S., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, 207

    2019

  3. [3]

    2017, MNRAS, 466, 3682

    Baldeschi, A., Elia, D., Molinari, S., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 3682

    2017

  4. [4]

    Ballesteros-Paredes, J., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Palau, A., & Klessen, R. S. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 2112

    2018

  5. [5]

    J., Covey, K

    Baxter, E. J., Covey, K. R., Muench, A. A., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 963

    2009

  6. [6]

    Bertoldi, F., & McKee, C. F. 1992, ApJ, 395, 140

    1992

  7. [7]

    J., Urquhart, J

    Billington, S. J., Urquhart, J. S., Figura, C., Eden, D. J., & Moore, T. J. T. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 3146

    2019

  8. [8]

    Blitz, L., & Stark, A. A. 1986, ApJ, 300, L89

    1986

Show all 191 references
  1. [9]

    1980, ApJ, 241, 676

    Blitz, L., & Thaddeus, P. 1980, ApJ, 241, 676

    1980

  2. [10]

    C., Savage, B

    Bohlin, R. C., Savage, B. D., & Drake, J. F. 1978, ApJ, 224, 132

    1978

  3. [11]

    Bonatto, C., Santos, Jr., J. F. C., & Bica, E. 2006, A&A, 445, 567

    2006

  4. [12]

    A., Bate, M

    Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., & Vine, S. G. 2003, MNRAS, 343, 413

    2003

  5. [13]

    2010, A&A, 524, A18

    Bontemps, S., Motte, F., Csengeri, T., & Schneider, N. 2010, A&A, 524, A18

    2010

  6. [14]

    D., Koch, E

    Boyden, R. D., Koch, E. W., Rosolowsky, E. W., & Offner, S. S. R. 2016, ApJ, 833, 233

    2016

  7. [15]

    D., Offner, S

    Boyden, R. D., Offner, S. S. R., Koch, E. W., & Rosolowsky, E. W. 2018, ApJ, 860, 157

    2018

  8. [16]

    M., et al

    Bresnahan, D., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, A125

    2018

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJ, 863, 118

    Burkhart, B. 2018, ApJ, 863, 118

    2018

  10. [18]

    1984, ApJ, 282, L27

    Campbell, B. 1984, ApJ, 282, L27

    1984

  11. [19]

    M., Meyer, M

    Carpenter, J. M., Meyer, M. R., Dougados, C., Strom, S. E., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, AJ, 114, 198

    1997

  12. [20]

    W., Grasdalen, G

    Castelaz, M. W., Grasdalen, G. L., Hackwell, J. A., Capps, R. W., & Thompson, D. 1985, AJ, 90, 1113

    1985

  13. [21]

    C.-Y., Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., et al

    Chen, M. C.-Y., Di Francesco, J., Johnstone, D., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, 95 – 88 –

    2016

  14. [22]

    2017, ApJ, 838, 121

    Ching, T.-C., Lai, S.-P., Zhang, Q., et al. 2017, ApJ, 838, 121

    2017

  15. [23]

    1980, MNRAS, 193, 495 Comer´ on, F., Djupvik, A

    Colley, D. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 495 Comer´ on, F., Djupvik, A. A., Torra, J., Schneider, N., & Pasquali, A. 2019, A&A, 622, A134 Comer´ on, F., & Pasquali, A. 2012, A&A, 543, A101

    1980

  16. [24]

    M., Guzman, A., et al

    Contreras, Y., Rathborne, J. M., Guzman, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 466, 340

    2017

  17. [25]

    J., Krumholz, M

    Cunningham, A. J., Krumholz, M. R., McKee, C. F., & Klein, R. I. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 771

    2018

  18. [26]

    Dahm, S. E. 2008, The Young Cluster and Star Forming Region NGC 2264 (ASP), 966 Di Francesco, J., Evans, II, N. J., Caselli, P., et al. 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 17 Di Francesco, J., Keown, J., Ladjelate, B., et al. 2019, in prep, ApJ Di Francesco, J., Sadavoy, S., Motte...

    2008

  19. [27]

    2015, A&A, 584, A4

    Didelon, P., Motte, F., Tremblin, P., et al. 2015, A&A, 584, A4

    2015

  20. [28]

    2014, ApJ, 797, 58

    Dobashi, K., Matsumoto, T., Shimoikura, T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 58

    2014

  21. [29]

    2014, A&A, 570, A1 —

    Duarte-Cabral, A., Bontemps, S., Motte, F., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A1 —. 2013, A&A, 558, A125

    2014

  22. [30]

    K., Rosolowsky, E., Evans, II, N

    Dunham, M. K., Rosolowsky, E., Evans, II, N. J., Cyganowski, C., & Urquhart, J. S. 2011, ApJ, 741, 110

    2011

  23. [31]

    K., Rosolowsky, E., Evans, II, N

    Dunham, M. K., Rosolowsky, E., Evans, II, N. J., et al. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1157

    2010

  24. [32]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1328

    Elia, D., & Pezzuto, S. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1328

    2016

  25. [33]

    G., Lada, C

    Elmegreen, B. G., Lada, C. J., & Dickinson, D. F. 1979, ApJ, 230, 415

    1979

  26. [34]

    J., Smartt, S

    Evans, C. J., Smartt, S. J., Lee, J.-K., et al. 2005, A&A, 437, 467

    2005

  27. [35]

    Falgarone, E., & Puget, J. L. 1986, A&A, 162, 235

    1986

  28. [36]

    A., Di Francesco, J., et al

    Fallscheer, C., Reid, M. A., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 102

    2013

  29. [37]

    2016, MNRAS, 457, 375

    Federrath, C. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 375

    2016

  30. [38]

    B., Blackman, E

    Field, G. B., Blackman, E. G., & Keto, E. R. 2011, MNRAS, 416, 710

    2011

  31. [39]

    K., Bourke, T

    Friesen, R. K., Bourke, T. L., Di Francesco, J., Gutermuth, R., & Myers, P. C. 2016, ApJ, 833, 204

    2016

  32. [40]

    K., Medeiros, L., Schnee, S., et al

    Friesen, R. K., Medeiros, L., Schnee, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1513

    2013

  33. [41]

    K., Pineda, J

    Friesen, R. K., Pineda, J. E., co-PIs, et al. 2017, ApJ, 843, 63

    2017

  34. [42]

    2015, ApJ, 807, L4

    Fukui, Y., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, L4

    2015

  35. [43]

    Gao, Y., & Solomon, P. M. 2004, ApJ, 606, 271

    2004

  36. [44]

    E., Sellgren, K., & Werner, M

    Gatley, I., Becklin, E. E., Sellgren, K., & Werner, M. W. 1979, ApJ, 233, 575 – 89 –

    1979

  37. [45]

    2011, PySpecKit: Python Spectroscopic Toolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1109.001

    Ginsburg, A., & Mirocha, J. 2011, PySpecKit: Python Spectroscopic Toolkit, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1109.001

    2011

  38. [46]

    2013, ApJS, 208, 14

    Ginsburg, A., Glenn, J., Rosolowsky, E., et al. 2013, ApJS, 208, 14

    2013

  39. [47]

    A., Rosolowsky, E

    Goodman, A. A., Rosolowsky, E. W., Borkin, M. A., et al. 2009, Nature, 457, 63

    2009

  40. [48]

    2010, ApJ, 723, 971

    Gritschneder, M., Burkert, A., Naab, T., & Walch, S. 2010, ApJ, 723, 971

    2010

  41. [49]

    1988, A&A, 204, 253

    Guesten, R., & Fiebig, D. 1988, A&A, 204, 253

    1988

  42. [50]

    L., Martin, R

    Guilloteau, S., Wilson, T. L., Martin, R. N., Batria, W., & Pauls, T. A. 1983, A&A, 124, 322

    1983

  43. [51]

    M., et al

    Hachisuka, K., Brunthaler, A., Menten, K. M., et al. 2006, ApJ, 645, 337

    2006

  44. [52]

    E., Klein, R

    Hansen, C. E., Klein, R. I., McKee, C. F., & Fisher, R. T. 2012, ApJ, 747, 22

    2012

  45. [53]

    Hanson, M. M. 2003, ApJ, 597, 957

    2003

  46. [54]

    2013, A&A, 556, A153

    Hennebelle, P. 2013, A&A, 556, A153

    2013

  47. [55]

    2012, A&A, 543, L3

    Hennemann, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, L3

    2012

  48. [56]

    D., et al

    Henshaw, J. D., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 428, 3425

    2013

  49. [57]

    J., Scowen, P

    Hester, J. J., Scowen, P. A., Sankrit, R., et al. 1996, AJ, 111, 2349

    1996

  50. [58]

    H., Williams, J

    Heyer, M. H., Williams, J. P., & Brunt, C. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 956

    2006

  51. [59]

    Hildebrand, R. H. 1983, QJRAS, 24, 267

    1983

  52. [60]

    Ho, P. T. P., Barrett, A. H., Myers, P. C., et al. 1979, ApJ, 234, 912

    1979

  53. [61]

    Ho, P. T. P., & Townes, C. H. 1983, ARA&A, 21, 239 Hoffman, I. M. 2012, ApJ, 759, 76 Hoffman, I. M., & Seojin Kim, S. 2011, ApJ, 739, L15 Hoffmeister, V. H., Chini, R., Scheyda, C. M., et al. 2008, ApJ, 686, 310

    1983

  54. [62]

    2018, ApJS, 237, 27

    Hogge, T., Jackson, J., Stephens, I., et al. 2018, ApJS, 237, 27

    2018

  55. [63]

    J., Stolovy, S

    Johnston, K. J., Stolovy, S. R., Wilson, T. L., Henkel, C., & Mauersberger, R. 1989, ApJ, 343, L41

    1989

  56. [64]

    1980, A&AS, 42, 227 Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T

    Kallas, E., & Reich, W. 1980, A&AS, 42, 227 Kauffmann, J., Bertoldi, F., Bourke, T. L., Evans, II, N. J., & Lee, C. W. 2008, A&A, 487, 993 Kauffmann, J., & Pillai, T. 2010, ApJ, 723, L7 Kauffmann, J., Pillai, T., & Goldsmith, P. F. 2013, ApJ, 779, 185

    1980

  57. [65]

    2017, ApJ, 850, 3

    Keown, J., Di Francesco, J., Kirk, H., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 3

    2017

  58. [66]

    2019, ApJ, 874, 147

    Kerr, R., Kirk, H., Di Francesco, J., et al. 2019, ApJ, 874, 147

    2019

  59. [67]

    2006, ApJ, 646, 1009 – 90 –

    Kirk, H., Johnstone, D., & Di Francesco, J. 2006, ApJ, 646, 1009 – 90 –

    2006

  60. [68]

    K., Pineda, J

    Kirk, H., Friesen, R. K., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 144

    2017

  61. [69]

    M., Ward-Thompson, D., Palmeirim, P., et al

    Kirk, J. M., Ward-Thompson, D., Palmeirim, P., et al. 2013b, MNRAS, 432, 1424 Kn¨ odlseder, J. 2000, A&A, 360, 539

    2000

  62. [70]

    W., Ward, C

    Koch, E. W., Ward, C. G., Offner, S., Loeppky, J. L., & Rosolowsky, E. W. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 1506 K¨ onyves, V., Andr´ e, P., Men’shchikov, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L106 —. 2015, A&A, 584, A91

    2017

  63. [71]

    R., & McKee, C

    Krumholz, M. R., & McKee, C. F. 2008, Nature, 451, 1082

    2008

  64. [72]

    T., Hora, J

    Kryukova, E., Megeath, S. T., Hora, J. L., et al. 2014, AJ, 148, 11

    2014

  65. [73]

    T., & Balog, Z

    Kun, M., Kiss, Z. T., & Balog, Z. 2008, Star Forming Regions in Cepheus (ASP), 136

    2008

  66. [74]

    2013, ApJ, 765, 85

    Kurono, Y., Saito, M., Kamazaki, T., Morita, K.-I., & Kawabe, R. 2013, ApJ, 765, 85

    2013

  67. [75]

    L., Dickman, R

    Kutner, M. L., Dickman, R. L., Tucker, K. D., & Machnik, D. E. 1979, ApJ, 232, 724

    1979

  68. [76]

    Lada, C. J. 1976, ApJS, 32, 603

    1976

  69. [77]

    J., Forbrich, J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J

    Lada, C. J., Forbrich, J., Lombardi, M., & Alves, J. F. 2012, ApJ, 745, 190

    2012

  70. [78]

    Lada, E. A. 1992, ApJ, 393, L25

    1992

  71. [79]

    R., & Willson, R

    Lang, K. R., & Willson, R. F. 1980, ApJ, 238, 867

    1980

  72. [80]

    Larson, R. B. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 809

    1981

  73. [81]

    I., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Storm, S., et al

    Lee, K. I., Fern´ andez-L´ opez, M., Storm, S., et al. 2014, ApJ, 797, 76

    2014

  74. [82]

    2013, ApJ, 768, L5

    Li, D., Kauffmann, J., Zhang, Q., & Chen, W. 2013, ApJ, 768, L5

    2013

  75. [83]

    S., Leurini, S., et al

    Li, G.-X., Urquhart, J. S., Leurini, S., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A5

    2016

  76. [84]

    S., Juvela, M., et al

    Liu, T., Li, P. S., Juvela, M., et al. 2018, ApJ, 859, 151

    2018

  77. [85]

    Lombardi, M., Alves, J., & Lada, C. J. 2011, A&A, 535, A16

    2011

  78. [86]

    Lovas, F. J. 2004, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 33, 177

    2004

  79. [87]

    B., et al

    Lu, X., Zhang, Q., Liu, H. B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 855, 9

    2018

  80. [88]

    Mairs, S., Johnstone, D., Offner, S. S. R., & Schnee, S. 2014, ApJ, 783, 60

    2014

  81. [89]

    K., Ojha, D

    Mallick, K. K., Ojha, D. K., Tamura, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3218

    2014

  82. [90]

    G., Emerson, D

    Mangum, J. G., Emerson, D. T., & Greisen, E. W. 2007, A&A, 474, 679

    2007

  83. [91]

    G., Wootten, A., & Mundy, L

    Mangum, J. G., Wootten, A., & Mundy, L. G. 1991, ApJ, 378, 576

    1991

  84. [92]

    Margulis, M., & Lada, C. J. 1986, ApJ, 309, L87

    1986

  85. [93]

    A., Kirk, J

    Marsh, K. A., Kirk, J. M., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 459, 342

    2016

  86. [94]

    McKee, C. F. 1989, ApJ, 345, 782 – 91 –

    1989

  87. [95]

    T., Herter, T., Beichman, C., et al

    Megeath, S. T., Herter, T., Beichman, C., et al. 1996, A&A, 307, 775

    1996

  88. [96]

    T., Townsley, L

    Megeath, S. T., Townsley, L. K., Oey, M. S., & Tieftrunk, A. R. 2008, Low and High Mass Star Formation in the W3, W4, and W5 Regions (ASP), 264 Men’shchikov, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A63 Men’shchikov, A., Andr´ e, P., Didelon, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, A81 —. 2010, A&A, 518, L103

    2008

  89. [97]

    Merello, M., Molinari, S., Rygl, K. L. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5355

    2019

  90. [98]

    S., & Conway, J

    Minier, V., Booth, R. S., & Conway, J. E. 2000, A&A, 362, 1093

    2000

  91. [99]

    2013, A&A, 550, A50 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Martin, P

    Minier, V., Tremblin, P., Hill, T., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A50 Miville-Deschˆ enes, M.-A., Martin, P. G., Abergel, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L104

    2013

  92. [100]

    2011, A&A, 530, A133

    Molinari, S., Schisano, E., Faustini, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A133

    2011

  93. [101]

    2010, PASP, 122, 314

    Molinari, S., Swinyard, B., Bally, J., et al. 2010, PASP, 122, 314

    2010

  94. [102]

    1990, A&A, 233, 527

    Montalban, J., Bachiller, R., Martin-Pintado, J., Tafalla, M., & Gomez-Gonzalez, J. 1990, A&A, 233, 527

    1990

  95. [103]

    J., Menten, K

    Moscadelli, L., Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., et al. 2009, ApJ, 693, 406

    2009

  96. [104]

    2007, A&A, 476, 1243

    Motte, F., Bontemps, S., Schilke, P., et al. 2007, A&A, 476, 1243

    2007

  97. [105]

    2010, A&A, 518, L77

    Motte, F., Zavagno, A., Bontemps, S., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L77

    2010

  98. [106]

    Myers, P. C. 2009, ApJ, 700, 1609

    2009

  99. [107]

    O., et al

    Nakano, M., Soejima, T., Chibueze, J. O., et al. 2017, PASJ, 69, 16

    2017

  100. [108]

    Naranjo-Romero, R., V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., & Loughnane, R. M. 2015, ApJ, 814, 48 Nguyen Luong, Q., Motte, F., Hennemann, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, A76 Nguyen-Lu’o’ng, Q., Motte, F., Carlhoff, P., et al. 2013, ApJ, 775, 88

    2015

  101. [109]

    2017, arXiv e-prints - Submitted to PASJ, arXiv:1706.06002

    Nishimura, A., Costes, J., Inaba, T., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints - Submitted to PASJ, arXiv:1706.06002

    2017 arXiv

  102. [110]

    2018, PASJ, 70, S42

    Nishimura, A., Minamidani, T., Umemoto, T., et al. 2018, PASJ, 70, S42

    2018

  103. [111]

    S., Watson, A

    Oey, M. S., Watson, A. M., Kern, K., & Walth, G. L. 2005, AJ, 129, 393 Offner, S. S. R., Bisbas, T. G., Viti, S., & Bell, T. A. 2013, ApJ, 770, 49 Offner, S. S. R., & Chaban, J. 2017, ApJ, 847, 104 Offner, S. S. R., & Liu, Y. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 896

    2005

  104. [112]

    1984, PASJ, 36, 139 – 92 –

    Ogura, K. 1984, PASJ, 36, 139 – 92 –

    1984

  105. [113]

    V., et al

    Ohashi, S., Sanhueza, P., Chen, H.-R. V., et al. 2016, ApJ, 833, 209

    2016

  106. [114]

    K., Tamura, M., Nakajima, Y., et al

    Ojha, D. K., Tamura, M., Nakajima, Y., et al. 2004, ApJ, 608, 797

    2004

  107. [115]

    Oliveira, J. M. 2008, Star Formation in the Eagle Nebula (ASP), 599

    2008

  108. [116]

    J., Masheder, M

    Oliver, R. J., Masheder, M. R. W., & Thaddeus, P. 1996, A&A, 315, 578

    1996

  109. [117]

    D., Chapin, E

    Olmi, L., Araya, E. D., Chapin, E. L., et al. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1132

    2010

  110. [118]

    P., & Nguyen-Q-Rieu

    Pagani, L. P., & Nguyen-Q-Rieu. 1987, A&A, 181, 112

    1987

  111. [119]

    2013, A&A, 550, A38

    Palmeirim, P., Andr´ e, P., Kirk, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A38

    2013

  112. [120]

    M., et al

    Pattle, K., Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1094 —. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 4255

    2015

  113. [121]

    2006, A&A, 445, 979 P´ erez-Beaupuits, J

    Peretto, N., Andr´ e, P., & Belloche, A. 2006, A&A, 445, 979 P´ erez-Beaupuits, J. P., Stutzki, J., Ossenkopf, V., et al. 2015, A&A, 575, A9

    2006

  114. [122]

    S., & Mac Low, M.-M

    Peters, T., Banerjee, R., Klessen, R. S., & Mac Low, M.-M. 2011, ApJ, 729, 72

    2011

  115. [123]

    2012, ApJ, 751, 135

    Pillai, T., Caselli, P., Kauffmann, J., et al. 2012, ApJ, 751, 135

    2012

  116. [124]

    C., et al

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Tan, J. C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 74

    2015

  117. [125]

    2011, A&A, 530, A118

    Pillai, T., Kauffmann, J., Wyrowski, F., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A118

    2011

  118. [126]

    E., Goodman, A

    Pineda, J. E., Goodman, A. A., Arce, H. G., et al. 2010, ApJ, 712, L116

    2010

  119. [127]

    Pirogov, L. E. 2009, Astronomy Reports, 53, 1127 Planck Collaboration, Abergel, A., Ade, P. A. R., et al. 2014, A&A, 571, A11

    2009

  120. [128]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 22

    Pokhrel, R., Gutermuth, R., Ali, B., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 22

    2016

  121. [129]

    2013, ApJ, 777, L33

    Polychroni, D., Schisano, E., Elia, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 777, L33

    2013

  122. [130]

    S., Churchwell, E., Bieging, J

    Povich, M. S., Churchwell, E., Bieging, J. H., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 1278

    2009

  123. [131]

    R., Longmore, S

    Purcell, C. R., Longmore, S. N., Walsh, A. J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 1972

    2012

  124. [132]

    Qiu, K., Zhang, Q., & Menten, K. M. 2011, ApJ, 728, 6

    2011

  125. [133]

    A., Pipher, J

    Rapson, V. A., Pipher, J. L., Gutermuth, R. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 794, 124

    2014

  126. [134]

    Rayner, T. S. M., Griffin, M. J., Schneider, N., et al. 2017, A&A, 607, A22

    2017

  127. [135]

    O., Caselli, P., et al

    Redaelli, E., Alves, F. O., Caselli, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 202

    2017

  128. [136]

    A., & Wilson, C

    Reid, M. A., & Wilson, C. D. 2005, ApJ, 625, 891 Rivera-G´ alvez, S., Rom´ an-Z´ u˜ niga, C. G., Jim´ enez-Bail´ on, E., et al. 2015, AJ, 150, 191

    2005

  129. [137]

    G., Polychroni, D., & Moore, T

    Rivera-Ingraham, A., Martin, P. G., Polychroni, D., & Moore, T. J. T. 2011, ApJ, 743, 39

    2011

  130. [138]

    G., Polychroni, D., et al

    Rivera-Ingraham, A., Martin, P. G., Polychroni, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 766, 85 —. 2015, ApJ, 809, 81

    2013

  131. [139]

    2016, A&A, 591, A90 – 93 – Rom´ an-Z´ u˜ niga, C

    Rivera-Ingraham, A., Ristorcelli, I., Juvela, M., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A90 – 93 – Rom´ an-Z´ u˜ niga, C. G., & Lada, E. A. 2008, Star Formation in the Rosette Complex (ASP), 928

    2016

  132. [140]

    2006, PASP, 118, 590

    Rosolowsky, E., & Leroy, A. 2006, PASP, 118, 590

    2006

  133. [141]

    K., Ginsburg, A., et al

    Rosolowsky, E., Dunham, M. K., Ginsburg, A., et al. 2010, ApJS, 188, 123

    2010

  134. [142]

    W., Pineda, J

    Rosolowsky, E. W., Pineda, J. E., Kauffmann, J., & Goodman, A. A. 2008, ApJ, 679, 1338

    2008

  135. [143]

    Rygl, K. L. J., Wyrowski, F., Schuller, F., & Menten, K. M. 2010, A&A, 515, A42

    2010

  136. [144]

    Rygl, K. L. J., Brunthaler, A., Sanna, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A79

    2012

  137. [145]

    Rygl, K. L. J., Goedhart, S., Polychroni, D., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 427

    2014

  138. [146]

    M., & Wright, M

    Sandell, G., Goss, W. M., & Wright, M. 2005, ApJ, 621, 839

    2005

  139. [147]

    Sandell, G., Wright, M., & Forster, J. R. 2003, ApJ, 590, L45

    2003

  140. [148]

    M., & Wilson, T

    Schilke, P., Mauersberger, R., Walmsley, C. M., & Wilson, T. L. 1990, A&A, 227, 220 Schlafly, E. F., Green, G., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2014, ApJ, 786, 29

    1990

  141. [149]

    2006, A&A, 458, 855

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Simon, R., et al. 2006, A&A, 458, 855

    2006

  142. [150]

    1998, A&A, 335, 1049

    Schneider, N., Stutzki, J., Winnewisser, G., & Block, D. 1998, A&A, 335, 1049

    1998

  143. [151]

    2011, A&A, 529, A1

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Simon, R., et al. 2011, A&A, 529, A1

    2011

  144. [152]

    2012, A&A, 540, L11

    Schneider, N., et al. 2012, A&A, 540, L11

    2012

  145. [153]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, L41

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Girichidis, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, L41

    2015

  146. [154]

    2016, A&A, 591, A40 Sch¨ oier, F

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Motte, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A40 Sch¨ oier, F. L., van der Tak, F. F. S., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Black, J. H. 2005, A&A, 432, 369

    2016

  147. [155]

    M., Contreras, Y., et al

    Schuller, F., Menten, K. M., Contreras, Y., et al. 2009, A&A, 504, 415

    2009

  148. [156]

    Z., Sargent, A

    Scoville, N. Z., Sargent, A. I., Sanders, D. B., et al. 1986, ApJ, 303, 416

    1986

  149. [157]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 2410

    Seifried, D., & Walch, S. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 2410

    2015

  150. [158]

    M., Shirley, Y

    Seo, Y. M., Shirley, Y. L., Goldsmith, P., et al. 2015, ApJ, 805, 185

    2015

  151. [159]

    Shirley, Y. L. 2015, PASP, 127, 299

    2015

  152. [160]

    I., Kalenskii, S

    Slysh, V. I., Kalenskii, S. V., & Val’tts, I. E. 1995, ApJ, 442, 668

    1995

  153. [161]

    W., Jackson, J

    Stephens, I. W., Jackson, J. M., Whitaker, J. S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 824, 29

    2016

  154. [162]

    1990, ApJ, 356, 513

    Stutzki, J., & Guesten, R. 1990, ApJ, 356, 513

    1990

  155. [163]

    J., Genzel, R., et al

    Stutzki, J., Stacey, G. J., Genzel, R., et al. 1988, ApJ, 332, 379 – 94 –

    1988

  156. [164]

    2008, PASJ, 60, 23

    Sugiyama, K., Fujisawa, K., Doi, A., et al. 2008, PASJ, 60, 23

    2008

  157. [165]

    Surcis, G., Vlemmings, W. H. T., van Langevelde, H. J., & Hutawarakorn Kramer, B. 2012, A&A, 541, A47

    2012

  158. [166]

    E., et al

    Svoboda, B. E., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 59

    2016

  159. [167]

    C., Kong, S., Butler, M

    Tan, J. C., Kong, S., Butler, M. J., Caselli, P., & Fontani, F. 2013, ApJ, 779, 96

    2013

  160. [168]

    S., Lada, C

    Teixeira, P. S., Lada, C. J., Marengo, M., & Lada, E. A. 2012, A&A, 540, A83

    2012

  161. [169]

    A., & Lada, C

    Thronson, Jr., H. A., & Lada, C. J. 1983, ApJ, 269, 175

    1983

  162. [170]

    R., Gaume, R

    Tieftrunk, A. R., Gaume, R. A., Claussen, M. J., Wilson, T. L., & Johnston, K. J. 1997, A&A, 318, 931

    1997

  163. [171]

    R., Megeath, S

    Tieftrunk, A. R., Megeath, S. T., Wilson, T. L., & Rayner, J. T. 1998, A&A, 336, 991 Tig´ e, J., Motte, F., Russeil, D., et al. 2017, A&A, 602, A77 Traficante, A., Duarte-Cabral, A., Elia, D., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2220

    1998

  164. [172]

    2013, A&A, 560, A19

    Tremblin, P., Minier, V., Schneider, N., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A19

    2013

  165. [173]

    2014, A&A, 564, A106

    Tremblin, P., Schneider, N., Minier, V., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A106

    2014

  166. [174]

    S., Morgan, L

    Urquhart, J. S., Morgan, L. K., Figura, C. C., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1689

    2011

  167. [175]

    S., Figura, C

    Urquhart, J. S., Figura, C. C., Moore, T. J. T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 4029 Uyanıker, B., F¨ urst, E., Reich, W., Aschenbach, B., & Wielebinski, R. 2001, A&A, 371, 675 V´ azquez-Semadeni, E., Gonz´ alez-Samaniego, A., & Col´ ın, P. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 1313 V´ azquez-Semadeni,...

    2015 arXiv

  168. [176]

    R., Ogura, K., & Reipurth, B

    Walsh, J. R., Ogura, K., & Reipurth, B. 1992, MNRAS, 257, 110

    1992

  169. [177]

    2003, AJ, 125, 842

    Wang, H., Yang, J., Wang, M., & Yan, J. 2003, AJ, 125, 842

    2003

  170. [178]

    K., Feigelson, E

    Wang, J., Townsley, L. K., Feigelson, E. D., et al. 2008, ApJ, 675, 464

    2008

  171. [179]

    M., Andr´ e, P., et al

    Ward-Thompson, D., Kirk, J. M., Andr´ e, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 518, L92

    2010

  172. [180]

    W., Becklin, E

    Werner, M. W., Becklin, E. E., Gatley, I., et al. 1979, MNRAS, 188, 463

    1979

  173. [181]

    J., Nelson, R

    White, G. J., Nelson, R. P., Holland, W. S., et al. 1999, A&A, 342, 233

    1999

  174. [182]

    2012, A&A, 544, A146

    Wienen, M., Wyrowski, F., Schuller, F., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, A146

    2012

  175. [183]

    Williams, R. J. R., Ward-Thompson, D., & Whitworth, A. P. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 788

    2001

  176. [184]

    F., & Folch-Pi, F

    Willson, R. F., & Folch-Pi, F. J. 1981, AJ, 86, 1084

    1981

  177. [185]

    A., Dame, T

    Wilson, B. A., Dame, T. M., Masheder, M. R. W., & Thaddeus, P. 2005, A&A, 430, 523

    2005

  178. [186]

    L., & Mauersberger, R

    Wilson, T. L., & Mauersberger, R. 1990, A&A, 239, 305 – 95 –

    1990

  179. [187]

    A., Walker, C

    Wolf-Chase, G. A., Walker, C. K., & Lada, C. J. 1995, ApJ, 442, 197

    1995

  180. [188]

    J., Parker, R

    Wright, N. J., Parker, R. J., Goodwin, S. P., & Drake, J. J. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 639

    2014

  181. [189]

    J., Gao, Y., et al

    Wu, J., Evans, II, N. J., Gao, Y., et al. 2005, ApJ, 635, L173

    2005

  182. [190]

    J., Shirley, Y

    Wu, J., Evans, II, N. J., Shirley, Y. L., & Knez, C. 2010, ApJS, 188, 313

    2010

  183. [191]

    J., et al

    Xu, Y., Moscadelli, L., Reid, M. J., et al. 2011, ApJ, 733 This preprint was prepared with the AAS LATEX macros v5.2. – 96 – 100 101 102 103 104 Mass (M ) 10 1 100 101 102 vir On-filament Fraction: 0.69 100 101 102 103 104 Mass (M ) 10 1 100 101 102 vir On-filament Fraction: 0...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.