Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Gaia-ESO Survey: massive stars in the Carina Nebula. II. The spectroscopic analysis of the O-star population

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A complete census of single O-type stars in Carina reveals a slow-spinning, very young population with a gap near the zero-age main sequence.

desk verdict A solid, honest catalog paper: first homogeneous rotation/parameter census for Carina OB1, with selection caveats that are real but openly acknowledged. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16508 v1 pith:XNIVHGBD submitted 2025-01-27 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

S. R. Berlanas , L. Mahy , A. Herrero , J. Maíz Apellániz , R. Blomme , F. Comerón , I. Negueruela , J. A. Molina Lera
show 4 more authors
M. Pantaleoni González S. Daflon W. Santos V. M. Kalari
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords O-typestarsmassivestellarrotationCarinaNebulaCarOB1Hertzsprung-Russelldiagrammassdiscrepancy
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

This paper aims to characterize, for the first time as a population, the apparently single O-type stars of the Car OB1 association in the Carina Nebula, using the most complete census available. O-type stars are the hottest, most massive hydrogen-burning stars, and their rotation encodes their evolution and binary history. The paper argues that the projected rotational velocities ($v \sin i$) of the 37 stars with high-resolution spectra form a bimodal distribution peaking near $60$ km/s, with a short fast-rotator tail that ends near $320$ km/s and is statistically shorter than the tails seen in Milky Way and 30 Doradus samples. It further argues that the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram of 47 O stars shows a dearth of stars near the zero-age main sequence between roughly $32$ and $55$ $M_{\odot}$, that the region's age distribution peaks at 1 Myr with a secondary burst at 4--5 Myr, and that evolutionary masses exceed spectroscopic masses for stars below about $40$ $M_{\odot}$. If these results hold, Carina is a very young massive-star factory that has not yet produced the fastest rotating products of binary interaction, and its star formation has proceeded in at least two bursts.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three instruments. The first is the iacob-broad line-broadening tool, which combines Fourier-transform and goodness-of-fit measurements of metal and helium diagnostic lines to deliver $v \sin i$ values with uncertainties of 10--20%. The second is a grid of more than 100,000 FASTWIND non-LTE model spectra, fitted by the iacob-gbat tool, to derive effective temperature, surface gravity, helium abundance, and wind parameters. The third is Gaia astrometry with group-averaged distances, combined with the BONNSAI Bayesian tool on non-rotating Bonn evolutionary tracks, to convert those parameters into radii, luminosities, spectroscopic masses, evolutionary masses, and ages. The comparison of the Carina $v \sin i$ distribution with Milky Way and 30 Doradus samples using the Anderson-Darling k-sample test is the statistical machinery that turns the short fast-rotator tail into a quantitative claim.

What would settle it

A deep near-infrared spectroscopic survey of the heavily obscured parts of Trumpler 14 and the wider Carina Nebula would settle the near-main-sequence gap: finding many stars of roughly $32$--$55$ $M_{\odot}$ on or near the main sequence behind the optical extinction would make the dearth an observational artifact, and finding any Carina O star with $v \sin i$ above about $310$ km/s would refute the truncated rotation tail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Carina Nebula's O-star population, defined by 54 apparently single members of Car OB1, is young and slow-spinning. From 37 high-resolution spectra, the authors derive a bimodal $v \sin i$ distribution with a low-velocity peak at $60$ km/s, a gap at $75$--$100$ km/s (which they judge stochastic after adding B0 stars), and a fast-rotator tail that stops below $350$ km/s, with no star above $310$ km/s. Anderson-Darling tests reject the hypothesis that this distribution comes from the same parent population as the Milky Way or 30 Doradus $v \sin i$ distributions, while the samples agree below $250$ km/s. The paper also builds classical and spectroscopic Hertzsprung-Russell diagrams for 47 stars, finds the near-ZAMS gap between about $32$ and $55$ $M_{\odot}$, derives ages peaking at 1 Myr with a secondary 4--5 Myr peak, and reports a systematic trend in which evolutionary masses exceed spectroscopic masses for stars with evolutionary mass below $40$ $M_{\odot}$.

Load-bearing premise

The 37 stars with high-resolution spectra stand in for the full 54-star census, so heavily obscured, unresolved, or spectrum-less stars would not fill the $32$--$55$ $M_{\odot}$ near-main-sequence gap or extend the rotation tail past $310$ km/s.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the short fast-rotator tail is real, Car OB1 has not yet produced the very fast rotators that binary-interaction channels are expected to create, implying an age or environment dependence of the tail length.
  • If the near-main-sequence gap is intrinsic rather than an extinction effect, star formation in Carina has produced few stars near $32$--$55$ $M_{\odot}$ in its first million years.
  • The 1 Myr age peak with a secondary 4--5 Myr peak implies a second burst of star formation across most Carina clusters, with Trumpler 14 the only group showing only the young component.
  • For stars below about $40$ $M_{\odot}$, evolutionary models overpredict masses relative to spectroscopic masses, a discrepancy that appears in this sample without a clear dependence on rotation or age.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension not made in the paper is to obtain high-resolution spectra for the ten stars observed only at low spectral resolution; if they populate the $75$--$100$ km/s gap or add stars above $200$ km/s, the bimodal shape and the short-tail conclusion would need revision.
  • If the tail length is set by binary-interaction timescales, older associations should show progressively longer fast-rotator tails; comparing clusters spanning roughly 1--10 Myr would test this directly.
  • The paper's own suggested near-infrared search for embedded O4--O5 dwarfs can be made quantitative: counting such stars in Trumpler 14 would tell whether the near-main-sequence gap is an artifact of extinction.
  • The mass-discrepancy trend below $40$ $M_{\odot}$ could be checked independently with eclipsing binaries or asteroseismic masses in Carina, separating model systematics from a real offset between spectroscopic and evolutionary masses.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a spectroscopic analysis of apparently single O-type stars in the Car OB1 association, using high-resolution GES and OWN spectra for 37 stars and lower-resolution GOSSS spectra for 10 additional stars. The authors derive projected rotational velocities with iacob-broad (FT and GOF methods), effective temperatures, gravities, helium abundances, radii, luminosities, and spectroscopic masses with FASTWIND/iacob-gbat, and evolutionary masses and ages with BONNSAI. The central claims are: (i) the v sin i distribution of 37 stars is bimodal, peaking near 60 km/s, with a short fast-rotator tail reaching about 320 km/s and no stars above about 310 km/s; (ii) the HRD shows a dearth of stars close to the ZAMS in the approximate range 32-55 solar masses; (iii) the region is very young, with an age distribution peaking at 1 Myr and a secondary 4-5 Myr peak; and (iv) evolutionary masses systematically exceed spectroscopic masses for stars below about 40 solar masses.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides the most complete spectroscopic characterization of the O-star population in Car OB1 to date and adds an important data point to studies of massive-star rotation in different Galactic environments. The v sin i comparison with the Milky Way and 30 Doradus samples, the apparent truncation of the fast-rotator tail, and the ZAMS gap in a very young region are meaningful observational constraints on models of massive star formation, binary interaction, and evolution. The paper's strengths include the systematic use of two independent line-broadening diagnostics (FT and GOF), a homogeneous quantitative analysis with FASTWIND models, cross-checks against previous parameter determinations, and explicit attempts to use GOSSS data and B0 stars to assess completeness of the rotation distribution. The main weaknesses are that the rotation-velocity and HRD-gap conclusions depend on a 37-star sample (68.5% of the census) whose representativeness is asserted rather than demonstrated, and that one of the paper's own conclusions concedes the ZAMS gap could be an observational artifact of missing embedded stars.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2 and §4.1, Figs. 2-3] The claim that the Car OB1 v sin i distribution has a short tail with no stars above about 310 km/s rests entirely on the 37-star high-resolution sample, which is only 68.5% of the 54-star census. Five stars have no optical spectra, the 10 GOSSS-only stars can only be screened above roughly 100 km/s, and [ARV2008]217 is excluded. The paper calls this sample 'representative' but provides no quantitative selection-bias test. Because the expected number of stars above 250 km/s from the Milky Way or 30 Doradus distributions is about 6-8 while only 4 are observed, adding even a small number of fast rotators among the missing or poorly observed stars could erase the claimed statistical distinction. I ask the authors to quantify the impact of the missing 17 stars (e.g., by injecting plausible v sin i values from the comparison distributions and recomputing the Anderson-Darling results) or to explicitly rephrase the tail claim as an upper limit conditioned on the observed subset.
  2. [§4.3, Fig. 4] The paper's own text states that the lack of known O4-O5 dwarfs and the inhomogeneous extinction imply that some of the youngest and most massive stars 'could also be hidden behind their natal clouds, thus producing the mentioned gap.' This admission directly undermines the strength of the headline conclusion that the ZAMS dearth at 32-55 M_sun is a real feature of Car OB1 rather than a completeness artifact. Since the same missing population is invoked as a possible explanation, the subsequent 'confirm the lack' language in the abstract and conclusions is too strong. The authors should either apply a completeness correction or present the ZAMS gap as a tentative result that is explicitly contingent on the unobserved embedded population; a simple estimate of how many embedded O4-O5 stars would be required to fill the gap would be valuable.
  3. [§3.3 and Table A.2] Luminosities, radii, spectroscopic masses, and ages are derived from group distances taken from Molina Lera et al. 2024 (in prep.), which is cited as unpublished. This is a reproducibility issue for a load-bearing input: the HRD gap, the age distribution, and the mass-discrepancy trend all depend on these luminosities. The statement that using individual distances gives no significant differences is reassuring, but the paper should show this comparison explicitly (e.g., a figure or table of parameters with individual versus group distances) so that readers can assess the sensitivity without access to the unpublished paper.
  4. [§4.5 and Fig. 7] There is an internal tension in the mass-discrepancy discussion. The abstract and Section 4.5 describe a 'clear trend' of Msp/Mev < 1 for Mev below about 40 M_sun, but the same section concludes that 'considering derived uncertainties, we cannot conclude any obvious systematic pattern on our sample.' The authors should reconcile these statements and, if the trend is statistically significant only in a bulk sense, provide a quantitative statement (e.g., a rank test, the fraction of stars with Msp/Mev more than 1-sigma below unity, or an error-weighted analysis). As written, the reader cannot tell whether the paper claims a robust mass-discrepancy trend or merely an intriguing hint.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Appendix B] The Zenodo DOI is given as 'http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.XXXXXXXX'; this placeholder must be replaced with the actual DOI before publication so that the best-fitting model figures are accessible.
  2. [Footnote 7, §4.1] Footnote 7 ends mid-sentence: 'Actually, the effect of a lower v sin i on the line width can be determined' is a dangling fragment. The intended statement should be completed or the footnote should be revised.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 lists the GOSSS instrument telescope as 'LCO 2.5mm (du Pont)'; the unit should be '2.5 m' rather than '2.5 mm'.
  4. [Acknowledgements] The acknowledgements contain the typo 'with the the computer resources'; this should be corrected to 'with the computer resources'.
  5. [§4.1, Anderson-Darling test] The phrase 'rejected (at a significance level of 0.6% and 2.8%)' is ambiguous: the authors should state whether these are p-values or significance thresholds, and use standard notation (e.g., p = 0.006 and p = 0.028).
  6. [Appendix A, Table A.1] The uncertainty columns for loggtrue in Table A.1 contain repeated '−0.07' values and awkward formatting (e.g., '+0.07 −0.07'); this should be cleaned up for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the central results are direct measurements plus independent model comparisons, and the self-citations are data/tool provenance rather than load-bearing arguments.

full rationale

The paper is an observational characterization, not a derivation of a predicted quantity from a fitted input. The v sin i distribution (Fig. 2) is obtained by applying the iacob-broad Fourier/GOF method directly to GES and OWN spectra of 37 stars; the bimodal shape and the ~310 km/s cutoff are measurements, and no parameter is fitted to the final distribution itself. The HRD and the reported ZAMS gap for roughly 32-55 solar masses are constructed from FASTWIND/iacob-gbat spectroscopic parameters, Gaia DR3 astrometry, and two independent evolutionary track families (Bonn and Geneva); the gap is compared with earlier work, and the paper explicitly acknowledges in Sect. 4.3 that embedded O4-O5 dwarfs could be hidden behind natal clouds, which is a completeness limitation rather than a circular reduction. The BONNSAI evolutionary masses and ages use the same Teff, log L, and logg inputs as the spectroscopic masses, but the Msp/Mev comparison is not an algebraic identity: it is an empirical check of whether observed gravities agree with model predictions, and the trend could have gone either way. Self-citations (Paper I census, Villafranca group distances, IACOB tools, and the comparison distributions of Holgado et al. and Ramirez-Agudelo et al.) are used for data provenance and comparison samples; the group distances are explicitly checked against individual distances with no significant difference, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is smuggled in to force the central claims. The only substantive weakness is sample representativeness (37 of 54 stars, with five having no optical spectra), which is a selection/completeness issue rather than a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements are spectroscopic fits and astrometric distances, so the ledger is mostly model and sample assumptions rather than fitted free parameters. No new physical entities are introduced. The principal assumptions are the applicability of solar-metallicity FASTWIND models, the two evolutionary track families (Bonn and Geneva) with their overshooting and rotation treatments, a constant extinction law, the unpublished Villafranca group distances, and the representativeness of the 37-star rotation sample. The paper's own caveats about extinction and incompleteness make the last assumption the most fragile.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption FASTWIND NLTE model grid at solar metallicity, without clumping, adequately reproduces the optical H and He lines of Carina O stars.
    Section 3.2: stellar parameters (Teff, log g, Y(He), wind Q) are derived by fitting a 100,000-model FASTWIND grid; incorrect metallicities or missing clumping would bias derived parameters and all downstream masses and ages.
  • domain assumption Bonn (Brott et al. 2011) non-rotating and Geneva (Ekstrom et al. 2012) rotating evolutionary tracks with their overshooting prescriptions (0.335 and 0.1) are appropriate for interpreting the HRD.
    Section 4.2: HRD positions, the ZAMS gap, and isochrones depend on these model families; different overshooting and rotation treatments shift isochrones and can change the apparent gap and ages.
  • domain assumption A constant R_V = 3.1 extinction law with the Rieke and Lebofsky (1985) coefficients holds across Carina.
    Section 3.3: AV is derived from E(V-Ks) using these coefficients; the paper notes results depend on this assumption and that RV varies between regions.
  • domain assumption The Villafranca group distances (Molina Lera et al., in prep) used for radii and luminosities are correct.
    Section 3.3: adopted distances are 2305 to 2363 pc from an unpublished analysis; if these are biased, luminosities, masses, and ages shift.
  • domain assumption The 37-star high-resolution sample is representative of the 54-star apparently single O-star census for the rotation distribution and ZAMS gap.
    Sections 2 and 4.1: the conclusion of a short fast-rotator tail and a ZAMS gap assumes missing or embedded stars do not change the picture; only 37 of 54 stars have high-resolution spectra.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gaia-ESO Survey: massive stars in the Carina Nebula. II. The spectroscopic analysis of the O-star population." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XNIVHGBD

@misc{pith2026250116508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gaia-ESO Survey: massive stars in the Carina Nebula. II. The spectroscopic analysis of the O-star population},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XNIVHGBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16508}
}
abstract

The new census of massive stars in the Carina nebula reveals the presence of 54 apparently single O-type stars in the Car OB1 association, an extremely active star-forming region which hosts some of the most luminous stars of the Milky Way. A detailed spectroscopic analysis of the currently most complete sample of O-type stars in the association can be used to inspect the main physical properties of cluster members and test evolutionary and stellar atmospheres models. We perform quantitative spectroscopic analysis for the most complete sample of apparently single O-type stars in Car OB1 with available spectroscopic data. From the high-resolution GES and OWN spectra we obtain a reliable distribution of rotational velocities for a sample of 37 O-type stars. It shows a bimodal structure with a low velocity peak at 60 km s$^{-1}$ and a short tail of fast rotators reaching 320 km s$^{-1}$. We also perform quantitative spectroscopic analysis and derive effective temperature, surface gravity and He abundance for a sample of 47 O-type stars, now including further stars from GOSSS database. Radii, luminosities, and spectroscopic masses were also determined using $Gaia$ astrometry. We create the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram to inspect the evolutionary status of the region and confirm the lack of stars close to the Zero Age Main Sequence (ZAMS) between $\sim$35 -- 55 M$_\odot$. We confirm a very young population with an age distribution peaking at 1 Myr, some stars close or even on the ZAMS, and a secondary peak at 4 -- 5 Myr in the age distribution. We confirm the youth of Trumpler 14, which is also the only cluster not showing the secondary peak. We also find a clear trend to evolutionary masses higher than derived spectroscopic masses for stars with evolutionary mass below 40 M$_{\odot}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of vsin i values for the sample of O stars analyzed in this work and resulting from either the FT or the GOF analysis pro￾vided by the iacob-broad tool. Dashed lines represent a difference of 20 km s−1 or 20% from the 1:1 relation, whichever is the largest. Different colors and symbols indicate the diagnostic lines used for the line-broadening characterization. 3.2. Main spectroscopic parameters We perfor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Le f t: Distribution of rotational velocities for the sample of 22 and 15 O-type stars in Carina from GES (turquoise color) and OWN (green color) catalogs, respectively. Middle: Normalized distribution for the same sample of 37 O-type stars for which high-resolution spectra are available. The red line represents a kernel density estimation using Gaussian kernels. Right: Distribution for the same sample of 37 O-type … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Normalized distribution of rotational velocities of the final sample of O-stars in Carina presented in this work compared to the distribution of O-stars found in the Cygnus OB2 association by Berlanas et al. (2020) (left), the Milky Way by Holgado et al. (2022) (middle), and in 30 Doradus by Ramírez-Agudelo et al. (2013) (right). formation process. Nevertheless, Ramírez-Agudelo et al. (2013) do not find a similar pa… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: HRDs for the sample of 47 O-type stars in Carina using rotating Geneva (Ekström et al. 2012, bottom panel) and non-rotating Bonn (Brott et al. 2011, top panel) evolutionary stellar tracks and isochrones. To facilitate the comparison between this work and ours, we first…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Spectroscopic HRD for the sample of O stars in Car OB1 using Geneva rotating evolutionary stellar tracks and isochrones. The triangles indicate upper limits for log g. We now perform a proper comparison between the classi￾cal HRD by Holgado et al. (2020) and ours. We s…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Age distribution (derived using the BONNSAI tool) for members of different clusters analyzed in this work: Trumpler 14 (Villafranca O￾002 group, in blue),Trumpler 16 W (Villafranca O-003, in orange), Trumpler 16 E (Villafranca O-025, in green),Trumpler 15 (Villafranca …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Msp/Mev relation against Mev (left) and age (right) for our sample of O-stars in Car OB1. Evolutionary masses have been obtained from the BONNSAI tool (using non-rotating evolutionary Bonn tracks at solar metallicity). Solid black lines indicates the relation Msp/Mev =…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 5 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. You're Gonna Need a Bigger Core: Calibrating Massive Star Models against Galactic OB-type Stars

    astro-ph.SR 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Galactic OB-star HR-diagram data imply a constant core overshoot α_ov ≈ 0.33 for 12–40 M_sun, yielding larger helium cores than standard prescriptions.

  2. The Gaia-ESO Survey: Projected Rotational Velocities of B stars in the Carina Nebula

    astro-ph.SR 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    New v sin i measurements for 330 B stars in Carina, with 222 first estimates, show a peak at 100 to 150 km/s and cluster-to-cluster differences.

  3. Unveiling the Milky Way with a Gaia DR3 census of OB-type stars within 2 kpc. I. Tracing local Galactic structure, massive star-forming regions and core-collapse supernova progenitors

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Gaia DR3-based census of 105,971 OB stars within 2 kpc maps local Galactic structure and identifies over 4,200 core-collapse supernova or black hole progenitor candidates.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    J., Hanes, R

    Alexander, M. J., Hanes, R. J., Povich, M. S., & McSwain, M. V . 2016, AJ, 152, 190 Barbá, R., Gamen, R., Arias, J. I., et al. 2014, in Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, V ol. 44, Revista Mexicana de Astronomia y Astrofisica Conference Series, 148–148 Barbá, R. H., Gamen, R., Arias, J. I., & Morrell, N. I. 2017, in The Lives ...

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    R., Herrero, A., Comerón, F., et al

    Berlanas, S. R., Herrero, A., Comerón, F., et al. 2018, A&A, 612, A50

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    R., Herrero, A., Comerón, F., et al

    Berlanas, S. R., Herrero, A., Comerón, F., et al. 2020, A&A, 642, A168

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    R., Herrero, A., Martins, F., et al

    Berlanas, S. R., Herrero, A., Martins, F., et al. 2017, in Highlights on Spanish As- trophysics IX, ed. S. Arribas, A. Alonso-Herrero, F. Figueras, C. Hernández-

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    R., Maíz Apellániz, J., Herrero, A., et al

    Berlanas, S. R., Maíz Apellániz, J., Herrero, A., et al. 2023, A&A, 671, A20

    2023

  6. [6]

    Bernini-Peron, M., Sander, A. A. C., Ramachandran, V ., et al. 2024, A&A, 692, A89

    2024

  7. [7]

    The Gaia-ESO Survey: The analysis of the hot-star spectra

    Blomme, R., Daflon, S., Gebran, M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.08662

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    C., Martins, F., Hillier, D

    Bouret, J. C., Martins, F., Hillier, D. J., et al. 2021, A&A, 647, A134

    2021

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    E., Cantiello, M., et al

    Brott, I., de Mink, S. E., Cantiello, M., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A115

    2011

  2. [10]

    2014, A&A, 570, L13

    Castro, N., Fossati, L., Langer, N., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, L13

    2014

  3. [11]

    D., et al

    Damiani, F., Klutsch, A., Jeffries, R. D., et al. 2017, A&A, 603, A81 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., Sana, H., & de Koter, A. 2013, ApJ, 764, 166 de Mink, S. E., Sana, H., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., & Schneider, F. R. N. 2014, ApJ, 782, 7

    2017

  4. [12]

    L., Langer, N., Dunstall, P

    Dufton, P. L., Langer, N., Dunstall, P. R., et al. 2013, A&A, 550, A109 Ekström, S., Georgy, C., Eggenberger, P., et al. 2012, A&A, 537, A146

    2013

  5. [13]

    J., Taylor, W

    Evans, C. J., Taylor, W. D., Hénault-Brunet, V ., et al. 2011, A&A, 530, A108 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A1 García-Vargas, M. L., Carrasco, E., Mollá, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 871

    2011

  6. [14]

    C., et al

    Gilmore, G., Randich, S., Worley, C. C., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A120

    2022

  7. [15]

    Gray, D. F. 2008, The Observation and Analysis of Stellar Photospheres

    2008

  8. [16]

    Gruner, D., Hainich, R., Sander, A. A. C., et al. 2019, A&A, 621, A63

    2019

  9. [17]

    J., McSwain, M

    Hanes, R. J., McSwain, M. V ., & Povich, M. S. 2018, AJ, 155, 190

    2018

  10. [18]

    M., Rieke, G

    Hanson, M. M., Rieke, G. H., & Luhman, K. L. 1998, AJ, 116, 1915

    1998

  11. [19]

    2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Herrero, A. 2016, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 507, Multi-Object Spectroscopy in the Next Decade: Big Questions, Large Surveys, and Wide Fields, ed. I. Skillen, M. Balcells, & S. Trager, 135

    2016

  12. [20]

    P., Vilchez, J

    Herrero, A., Kudritzki, R. P., Vilchez, J. M., et al. 1992, in Lecture Notes in

    1992

  13. [21]

    2002, A&A, 396, 949

    Herrero, A., Puls, J., & Najarro, F. 2002, A&A, 396, 949

    2002

  14. [22]

    2007, in Astronomical So- ciety of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol

    Herrero, A., Simon-Diaz, S., Najarro, F., & Ribas, I. 2007, in Astronomical So- ciety of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 367, Massive Stars in Interactive Binaries, ed. N. St.-Louis & A. F. J. Moffat, 67

    2007

  15. [23]

    Higgins, E. R. & Vink, J. S. 2019, A&A, 622, A50

    2019

  16. [24]

    H., et al

    Holgado, G., Simón-Díaz, S., Barbá, R. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 613, A65 Article number, page 11 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    2018

  17. [25]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05446

    Holgado, G., Simón-Díaz, S., Haemmerlé, L., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2005.05446

    2020

  18. [26]

    Holgado, G., Simón-Díaz, S., Herrero, A., & Barbá, R. H. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.12776

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kiminki, M. M. & Smith, N. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2068

    2018

  20. [28]

    Kudritzki, R. P. 1980, A&A, 85, 174

    1980

  21. [29]

    2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    Langer, N. 2012, ARA&A, 50, 107

    2012

  22. [30]

    & Kudritzki, R

    Langer, N. & Kudritzki, R. P. 2014, A&A, 564, A52

    2014

  23. [31]

    & Hubeny, I

    Lanz, T. & Hubeny, I. 2007, ApJS, 169, 83

    2007

  24. [32]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4

    Lindegren, L., Bastian, U., Biermann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A4

    2021

  25. [33]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2

    Lindegren, L., Hernández, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2

    2018

  26. [34]

    A., Sana, H., et al

    Mahy, L., Almeida, L. A., Sana, H., et al. 2020, A&A, 634, A119

    2020

  27. [35]

    Mahy, L., Rauw, G., De Becker, M., Eenens, P., & Flores, C. A. 2015, A&A, 577, A23 Maíz Apellániz, J. 2001, AJ, 121, 2737 Maíz Apellániz, J. 2005, in ESA Special Publication, V ol. 576, The Three- Dimensional Universe with Gaia, ed. C. Turon, K. S. O’Flaherty, & M. A. C. Perry...

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    2020, A&A, 643, A138 (Villafranca I) Maíz Apellániz, J., Sana, H., Barbá, R

    Sota, A. 2020, A&A, 643, A138 (Villafranca I) Maíz Apellániz, J., Sana, H., Barbá, R. H., Le Bouquin, J. B., & Gamen, R. C. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3561 Maíz Apellániz, J., Sota, A., Walborn, N. R., et al. 2011, in Highlights of Spanish Astrophysics VI, ed. M. R. Zapatero Osorio, J....

    2020

  29. [37]

    2018, A&A, 613, A12

    Markova, N., Puls, J., & Langer, N. 2018, A&A, 613, A12

    2018

  30. [38]

    J., & Rauw, G

    Martins, F., Mahy, L., Hillier, D. J., & Rauw, G. 2012, A&A, 538, A39

    2012

  31. [39]

    & Palacios, A

    Martins, F. & Palacios, A. 2013, A&A, 560, A16

    2013

  32. [40]

    & Plez, B

    Martins, F. & Plez, B. 2006, A&A, 457, 637

    2006

  33. [41]

    Martins, F., Schaerer, D., & Hillier, D. J. 2005, A&A, 436, 1049

    2005

  34. [42]

    I., Neugent, K

    Massey, P., Morrell, N. I., Neugent, K. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 748, 96

    2012

  35. [43]

    Massey, P., Puls, J., Pauldrach, A. W. A., et al. 2005, ApJ, 627, 477

    2005

  36. [44]

    A., et al

    Menon, A., Ercolino, A., Urbaneja, M. A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 963, L42

    2024

  37. [45]

    E., Napiwotzki, R., et al

    Mohr-Smith, M., Drew, J. E., Napiwotzki, R., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 1807

    2017

  38. [46]

    R., de Koter, A., Vink, J

    Mokiem, M. R., de Koter, A., Vink, J. S., et al. 2007, A&A, 473, 603

    2007

  39. [47]

    G., Levine, S

    Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al. 2003, AJ, 125, 984

    2003

  40. [48]

    Negueruela, I., Marco, A., Herrero, A., & Clark, J. S. 2008, A&A, 487, 575

    2008

  41. [49]

    A., Venero, R., et al

    Puls, J., Urbaneja, M. A., Venero, R., et al. 2005, A&A, 435, 669

    2005

  42. [50]

    2022, A&A, 658, A198 Ramírez-Agudelo, O

    Rainot, A., Reggiani, M., Sana, H., Bodensteiner, J., & Absil, O. 2022, A&A, 658, A198 Ramírez-Agudelo, O. H., Sana, H., de Koter, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A81 Ramírez-Agudelo, O. H., Simón-Díaz, S., Sana, H., et al. 2013, A&A, 560, A29

    2022

  43. [51]

    2022, A&A, 666, A121

    Randich, S., Gilmore, G., Magrini, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A121

    2022

  44. [52]

    2004, A&A, 415, 349

    Repolust, T., Puls, J., & Herrero, A. 2004, A&A, 415, 349

    2004

  45. [53]

    Rieke, G. H. & Lebofsky, M. J. 1985, ApJ, 288, 618 Rivero González, J. G., Puls, J., Massey, P., & Najarro, F. 2012, A&A, 543, A95 Sabín-Sanjulián, C., Simón-Díaz, S., Herrero, A., et al. 2017, A&A, 601, A79

    1985

  46. [54]

    E., de Koter, A., et al

    Sana, H., de Mink, S. E., de Koter, A., et al. 2012, Science, 337, 444

    2012

  47. [55]

    2010, A&A, 515, A26

    Sana, H., Momany, Y ., Gieles, M., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, A26

    2010

  48. [56]

    E., Puls, J., & Herrero, A

    Santolaya-Rey, A. E., Puls, J., & Herrero, A. 1997, A&A, 323, 488

    1997

  49. [57]

    Schneider, F. R. N., Langer, N., de Koter, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 570, A66

    2014

  50. [58]

    2016, A&A, 591, A40

    Schneider, N., Bontemps, S., Motte, F., et al. 2016, A&A, 591, A40

    2016

  51. [59]

    Scholz, F. W. & Stephens, M. A. 1987, Journal of the American Statistical As- sociation, 82, 918

    1987

  52. [60]

    2021, A&A, 646, A106

    Schootemeijer, A., Langer, N., Lennon, D., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A106

    2021

  53. [61]

    C., Prinja, R

    Searle, S. C., Prinja, R. K., Massa, D., & Ryans, R. 2008, A&A, 481, 777 Simón-Díaz, S., Castro, N., Garcia, M., Herrero, A., & Markova, N. 2011a, Bul- letin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 80, 514 Simón-Díaz, S., Castro, N., Herrero, A., et al. 2011b, in Journal o...

    2008

  54. [62]

    F., Cutri, R

    Skrutskie, M. F., Cutri, R. M., Stiening, R., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 1163

    2006

  55. [63]

    & Brooks, K

    Smith, N. & Brooks, K. J. 2008, in Handbook of Star Forming Regions, V olume II, ed. B. Reipurth, V ol. 5, 138

    2008

  56. [64]

    I., et al

    Sota, A., Maíz Apellániz, J., Morrell, N. I., et al. 2014, ApJS, 211, 10 (GOSSS II)

    2014

  57. [65]

    O., Simón-Díaz, S., Puls, J., & Markova, N

    Sundqvist, J. O., Simón-Díaz, S., Puls, J., & Markova, N. 2013, A&A, 559, L10

    2013

  58. [66]

    2020, A&A, 637, A60 V oss, R., Martin, P., Diehl, R., et al

    Tkachenko, A., Pavlovski, K., Johnston, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 637, A60 V oss, R., Martin, P., Diehl, R., et al. 2012, A&A, 539, A66

    2020

  59. [67]

    J., Drew, J

    Wright, N. J., Drew, J. E., & Mohr-Smith, M. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 741 Article number, page 12 Berlanas et al.: Massive stars in the Carina Nebula Appendix A: Tables In this appendix we present derived parameters for the O and B0 population of Car OB1 analyzed in this work. Tables...

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.