Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:46:40.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Galactic consequences of clustered star formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2010

M. R. Haas  and
P. Anders
M. R. Haas
Affiliation:
Leiden Observatory, Leiden University, Postbus 9513, 2300 RA, Leiden, the Netherlands email: [email protected]
P. Anders
Affiliation:
Sterrenkundig Instituut, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, the Netherlands email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

If all stars form in clusters and both stars and clusters follow a power-law distribution which favours the creation of low-mass objects, the numerous low-mass clusters will be deficient in high-mass stars. Therefore, the stellar mass function integrated over the entire galaxy (the integrated galactic initial mass function; IGIMF) will be steeper at the high-mass end than the underlying stellar IMF. We show how the steepness of the IGIMF depends on the sampling method and on the assumptions made regarding the star cluster mass function. We also investigate the O-star content, integrated photometry and chemical enrichment of galaxies that result from several IGIMFs compared to more standard IMFs.

Keywords

stars: luminosity functionmass functiongalaxies: stellar contentgalaxies: abundancesgalaxies: fundamental parametersmethods: statistical
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 5 , Symposium S266: Star clusters: basic galactic building blocks throughout time and space , August 2009 , pp. 417 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2010

References

Bicker, J., Fritze–v. Alvensleben, U., Möller, C. S., & Fricke, K. J. 2004, A&A, 413, 37Google Scholar
Goodwin, S. P. & Pagel, B. E. J. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haas, M. R. & Anders, P. 2009, A&A, submittedGoogle Scholar
Kotulla, R., Fritze, U., Weilbacher, P., & Anders, P. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroupa, P. & Weidner, C. 2003, ApJ, 598, 1076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paturel, G., Petit, C., Prugniel, P., Theureau, G., Rousseau, J., Brouty, M., Dubois, P., & Cambrésy, L. 2003, A&A, 412, 45Google Scholar
Pflamm–Altenburg, J. & Kroupa, P. 2008, Nature, 455, 641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recchi, S., Calura, F., & Kroupa, P. 2009, A&A, 499, 711Google Scholar
Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidner, C. & Kroupa, P. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidner, C. & Kroupa, P. 2005, ApJ, 625, 754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidner, C. & Kroupa, P. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 1333CrossRefGoogle Scholar