pith. sign in

arxiv: 2502.10922 · v1 · submitted 2025-02-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA

The Impact of Bars, Spirals and Bulge-Size on Gas-Phase Metallicity Gradients in MaNGA Galaxies

M.E. Wisz , Karen L. Masters , Kathryne J. Daniel , David V. Stark , Francesco Belfiore This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 03:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA
keywords metallicity gradientsgalaxy morphologyspiral galaxiesbarsbulgesMaNGAgas-phase metallicityGalaxy Zoo
0
0 comments X

The pith

At fixed galaxy mass, spiral galaxies show steeper gas-phase metallicity gradients than non-spirals, while larger bulges raise overall metallicity and flatten those gradients.

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

This paper measures gas-phase metallicity gradients in star-forming MaNGA galaxies and correlates them with morphological features classified by Galaxy Zoo. At fixed stellar mass, galaxies with spiral structure exhibit steeper gradients than those without spirals. Among spirals, those with larger bulges show higher average metallicities and shallower gradients. Neither the presence of bars nor the tightness of spiral winding produces a detectable change in gradient steepness, though looser spirals have lower average metallicities. The results link observable morphology to the radial distribution of metals built up through star formation and gas flows.

Core claim

Holding galaxy mass fixed, the presence of spiral structure correlates with steeper gas-phase metallicity gradients; spiral galaxies with larger bulges show both higher gas-phase metallicities and shallower gradients; barred and unbarred spirals display no difference in azimuthally averaged radial gradients; and tight versus loosely wound spirals show no difference in gradient steepness, though looser spirals have lower average metallicities.

What carries the argument

Azimuthally averaged radial gas-phase metallicity gradients derived from MaNGA emission-line data, compared against Galaxy Zoo morphological indicators for spiral presence, bar presence, bulge size, and spiral winding tightness.

If this is right

  • Spiral structure at fixed mass produces steeper metallicity gradients, consistent with spirals driving radial gas flows or limiting mixing.
  • Larger bulges in spirals increase central gas-phase metallicity while reducing the radial gradient.
  • Large-scale bars produce no measurable change in azimuthally averaged metallicity gradients compared with unbarred spirals.
  • Spiral arm winding tightness does not affect gradient steepness but loosely wound spirals maintain lower average metallicities at fixed mass.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Bulge growth may stabilize disks enough to reduce the efficiency of radial gas transport that would otherwise steepen gradients.
  • The absence of a bar signature suggests that any bar-driven radial mixing is either weak or compensated by other processes when averaged over the full disk.
  • If the mass-fixed spiral effect holds in simulations, it would require models to tie spiral arm formation directly to the radial redistribution of recently enriched gas.

Load-bearing premise

Galaxy Zoo visual classifications accurately capture the presence and properties of spirals, bars, and bulges without systematic misclassification that tracks with mass or metallicity, and the emission-line metallicity measurements contain no calibration errors that could produce spurious morphology correlations.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis with an independent set of morphological classifications or a different metallicity calibration method on the same MaNGA sample and finding that the correlation between spiral presence and gradient steepness disappears would falsify the central result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10922 by David V. Stark, Francesco Belfiore, Karen L. Masters, Kathryne J. Daniel, M.E. Wisz.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Example data for a spiral galaxy (MaNGA-ID: 1-62035) with loosely wound spiral arms evident in both the optical image (upper left) and traced out by the Hα (lower left) and [NII] flux maps (not shown). Top left: optical gri image of galaxy. Purple hexagon overlay is MaNGA field of view. Top right: Spaxel map of ionized gas velocity for Hα. Bottom left: Masked spaxel map of Hα flux. Bottom right: Masked spa… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our SF parent sample selection of N = 2632 galaxies (orange points) plotted alongside the whole of the MaNGA sample (blue points), showing redshift (upper) and SFR (lower; (logSFR Ha from Pipe3D) as a function of stellar mass. We observe that our sample is from both the primary (lower redshift for mass) and secondary (higher redshift for mass) samples of MaNGA, and almost entirely in the star￾forming seque… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Example gri images from morphological sub-samples. votes for consistency with other morphological indica￾tors. From the spiral galaxy sample, we assign each galaxy a bulge prominence score using Equation 3 from Masters et al. (2019): Bavg = 0.2pjustnoticeable + 0.8pobvious + 1.0pdominant, (1) which takes into account GZ volunteer answers to the question regarding the prominence of the central bulge size. B… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radial trend of metallicity using all three emis￾sion line metallicity indicators for example galaxy, MaNGA￾ID: 1-62035 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Gradients (middle; in dex/Re; right: in dex/kpc) and intercepts (left; Z = 12 + log(O/H)) of straight line fits to radial trends of all galaxies in the SF parent sample as a function of stellar mass for the O3N2 index (yellow), N2 index (red), and R23 index (blue) based metallicity calibrators used in this paper. Binned averages are shown in black for all calibrators (dashed line for O3N2, solid for N2, an… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized mass distributions of the samples before (left) and after (right) mass matching. Spiral (sky blue) and non-spiral (green) samples shown in the top row. Small bulge (blue) and large bulge (orange) samples are shown in second row. Barred (yellow) and unbarred (violet) spiral samples shown in third row. Tight (light green), medium (light blue) and loosely (pink) wound unbarred spiral galaxy samples… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Lower panel: Binned gas-phase O3N2 in￾dex metallicity trends for 2632 galaxies in stellar mass sub￾samples (see legend for the log(M/M⊙) ± 0.25 dex mass ranges). Upper panel: Median change in metallicity (Z = 12 + log(O/H)) in each subset between 0.6Re and 1.8Re) (circles) or 1.8Re and 2.4Re (triangles). Points are plotted at the median mass in each mass range using the same color code as for the lower pan… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Gas phase metallicity values from O3N2 at R = Re (left) and gradients (middle; in units of dex/Re; right: in units of dex/kpc) for straight line fits to the radial metallicity trends of all galaxies in spiral galaxy sample (blue) and non-spiral galaxy sample (green) as a function of stellar mass. Binned statistic trends to these relationships are shown for both samples, and the errors on these trend are sh… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: ) are over-plotted as crosses in the corresponding colors. These data show that galaxies with visible spiral arms have slightly lower average metallicity, and flatter metallicity gradients. 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 R/Re 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 12+log(O/H) Non Spiral Spiral Low Mass Medium Mass High Mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Metallicity values at R = Re (left) and gradients (middle and right) of straight line fits to all galaxies with large or small bulges from the spiral galaxy sample as a function of stellar mass. Binned statistic trends fit to these relationships are shown for both samples (blue for small bulges, and orange for large bulges), and the errors are shown in the shaded regions. Values from linear regression fit… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The O3N2 gas-phase metallicity trends for small bulges (blue) and large bulges (orange) in sub-samples of three mass bins (with thresholds at log(M⋆/M⊙) = 10.25 and log(M⋆/M⊙) = 10.75; the line-styles indicate the different mass bins as shown in the legend). ing levels. For both the low and medium mass samples, arm winding correlates with metallicity offset, with spi￾ral galaxies with looser wound arms ha… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Metallicity values at R = Re (left) and gradients (middle and right) of straight line fits to all galaxies with strong bars or no bar from the spiral galaxy sample as a function of stellar mass. Binned statistic trends fit to these relationships are shown for both samples (yellow for bars, and pink for no bars), and the errors are shown in the shaded regions. Values from linear regression fits to trends … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: O3N2 Radial metallicity trends for barred (yel￾low) and unbarred (violet) spiral galaxies for three mass bins, where the different line styles indicate the different mass ranges. The legend shows how line-styles correspond to mass range. ∗ Tightly wound spirals - (N = 207) - a sample of unbarred spiral galaxies with tightly wound spiral arms. ∗ Medium Wound Spirals - (N = 286) - a sample of unbarred spira… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Scatter of metallicity at R = Re (top row), gradient (middle row: units of dex/Re; bottom row: units of dex/kpc) values from the fit to each galaxy calculated by fitting a binned statistic to the O3N2 based metallicity trends in the sample versus mass (left), SFR (middle), and sSFR (right). Colored lines are binned statistic fit to these points, for each of the three arm winding selections. Values from li… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: O3N2 binned trends for three mass bin cuts made above for tight, medium, and loose arm winding samples. Colors are same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Stellar mass versus gas-phase metallicity gra￾dient (upper; in units of dex/Re) and value at R/Re (lower panel) from linear regression fits to trends for all discussed sub-samples (shown in Figures 9, 11, 13 and 15). Morphol￾ogy comparison sub-samples are mass-matched and plotted at the median mass after-matching. Fits are provided in three broad mass bins. portant source of angular momentum transfer is v… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

As galaxies evolve over time, the orbits of their constituent stars are expected to change in size and shape, moving stars away from their birth radius. Radial gas flows are also expected. Spiral arms and bars in galaxies are predicted to help drive this radial relocation, which may be possible to trace observationally via a flattening of metallicity gradients. We use data from the Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory (MaNGA) survey, part of the fourth phase of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys (SDSS-IV), to look for correlations of the steepness of gas-phase metallicity gradients with various galaxy morphological features (e.g. presence and pitch angle of spiral arms, presence of a large scale bar, bulge size). We select from MaNGA a sample of star forming galaxies for which gas phase metallicity trends can be measured, and use morphologies from Galaxy Zoo. We observe that at fixed galaxy mass (1) the presence of spiral structure correlates with steeper gas phase metallicity gradients; (2) spiral galaxies with larger bulges have both higher gas-phase metallicities and shallower gradients; (3) there is no observable difference with azimuthally averaged radial gradients between barred and unbarred spirals and (4) there is no observable difference in gradient between tight and loosely wound spirals, but looser wound spirals have lower average gas-phase metallicity values at fixed mass. We discuss the possible implications of these observational results.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses MaNGA emission-line data and Galaxy Zoo morphological classifications to study correlations between bars, spiral structure, bulge size, and gas-phase metallicity gradients in star-forming galaxies. At fixed stellar mass, it reports four main results: (1) spirals show steeper gradients than non-spirals; (2) spirals with larger bulges exhibit higher average metallicities and shallower gradients; (3) barred and unbarred spirals show no difference in azimuthally averaged gradients; (4) tight and loose spirals show no gradient difference but loose spirals have lower average metallicities.

Significance. If the reported correlations hold after detailed checks on classification accuracy and measurement systematics, the results supply empirical constraints on how internal structures influence radial gas flows and chemical evolution. The reliance on public survey data supports reproducibility and allows direct comparison with simulations of stellar migration.

minor comments (4)
  1. The abstract states the four results but provides no sample sizes, mass-bin widths, or uncertainty estimates; these quantitative details should be added to the abstract or highlighted in the first paragraph of the results section to allow readers to assess the strength of the correlations immediately.
  2. Section describing the metallicity gradient fitting procedure should explicitly state the radial range used, the minimum number of spaxels required per galaxy, and how uncertainties from the emission-line calibration are propagated into the gradient slope.
  3. The text should clarify whether the mass-matching procedure between morphological subsamples accounts for the full stellar-mass distribution or only the mean, and whether a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test or similar was applied to confirm the mass distributions are statistically indistinguishable.
  4. Figure captions for the gradient vs. morphology panels should include the number of galaxies in each morphological category and the Spearman rank correlation coefficient with its significance to make the visual trends quantitatively interpretable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our manuscript and the recommendation for minor revision. The provided summary accurately captures the main results. No specific major comments were listed in the report, so we have no point-by-point responses at this time. We will address any minor points or suggestions during revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely observational correlations

full rationale

The paper reports direct observational trends between Galaxy Zoo morphologies and MaNGA-derived gas-phase metallicity gradients at fixed stellar mass. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the provided text. All results are stated as measured correlations from public survey data, with no internal reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. This matches the default expectation for non-circular observational studies.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard domain assumptions about data quality and classifications rather than new theoretical constructs or fitted parameters.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Gas-phase metallicities and their radial gradients can be reliably extracted from MaNGA emission-line spectra using established calibrations.
    Invoked implicitly when reporting gradient measurements; standard in the field but calibration choice can affect absolute values.
  • domain assumption Galaxy Zoo volunteer classifications provide sufficiently accurate morphological labels for bars, spirals, pitch angle, and bulge size in the selected sample.
    Central to all four reported correlations; accuracy of citizen-science labels is assumed without new validation in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5812 in / 1390 out tokens · 42943 ms · 2026-05-23T03:13:20.428091+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 88 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al

    Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 Argudo-Fern´ andez, M., Verley, S., Bergond, G., et al. 2015, A&A, 578, A110, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526016 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whe...

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac4414 2022

  2. [2]

    1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    Athanassoula, E. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 345, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.2.345

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/259.2.345 1992

  3. [3]

    A., Phillips, M

    Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5, doi: 10.1086/130766

    work page doi:10.1086/130766 1981

  4. [4]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 461, doi: 10.1086/149349

    Barbanis, B., & Woltjer, L. 1967, ApJ, 150, 461, doi: 10.1086/149349

    work page doi:10.1086/149349 1967

  5. [5]

    K., S´ anchez, S

    Barrera-Ballesteros, J. K., S´ anchez, S. F., Espinosa-Ponce, C., et al. 2023, RMxAA, 59, 213, doi: 10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.06

    work page doi:10.22201/ia.01851101p.2023.59.02.06 2023

  6. [6]

    2017, MNRAS, 469, 151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx789

    Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Tremonti, C., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 151, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx789

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx789 2017

  7. [7]

    A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S

    Bellardini, M. A., Wetzel, A., Loebman, S. R., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4586, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1606

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1606 2021

  8. [8]

    2011, AJ, 142, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/31

    Price-Whelan, A. 2011, AJ, 142, 31, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/31

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/142/1/31 2011

  9. [9]

    R., Bershady, M

    Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7567 2017

  10. [10]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 4301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad277

    Boardman, N., Wild, V., Heckman, T., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 4301, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad277

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad277 2023

  11. [11]

    F., Zasowski, G., Newman, J

    Boardman, N. F., Zasowski, G., Newman, J. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 948, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3785

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3785 2021

  12. [12]

    1999, MNRAS, 307, 857, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02699.x 21

    Boissier, S., & Prantzos, N. 1999, MNRAS, 307, 857, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02699.x 21

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02699.x 1999

  13. [13]

    2023, MNRAS, 523, 1565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1503

    Buck, T., Obreja, A., Ratcliffe, B., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 1565, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1503

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1503 2023

  14. [14]

    A., Law, D

    Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/798/1/7

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/798/1/7 2015

  15. [15]

    Bustamante, S., Sparre, M., Springel, V., & Grand, R. J. J. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 3381, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1692

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1692 2018

  16. [16]

    G., & Sellwood, J

    Carlberg, R. G., & Sellwood, J. A. 1985, ApJ, 292, 79, doi: 10.1086/163134

    work page doi:10.1086/163134 1985

  17. [17]

    Casteels, K. R. V., Bamford, S. P., Skibba, R. A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 1051, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts391

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts391 2013

  18. [18]

    J., et al

    Chen, Q.-H., Grasha, K., Battisti, A. J., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 4801, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3790

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3790 2023

  19. [19]

    H., S´ anchez-Gallego, J., et al

    Cherinka, B., Andrews, B. H., S´ anchez-Gallego, J., et al. 2019, AJ, 158, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2634

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab2634 2019

  20. [20]

    E., & White, M

    Conroy, C., Gunn, J. E., & White, M. 2009, ApJ, 699, 486, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/699/1/486

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1088/0004-637x/699/1/486 2009

  21. [21]

    F., Kramer, M., Lyne, A

    Croom, S. M., Lawrence, J. S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 872, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20365.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20365.x 2012

  22. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 882, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab341a

    Kawaguchi, C., & Loebman, S. 2019, ApJ, 882, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab341a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab341a 2019

  23. [23]

    J., & Wyse, R

    Daniel, K. J., & Wyse, R. F. G. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 3576, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2683 Di Matteo, P., Combes, F., Melchior, A. L., & Semelin, B. 2007, A&A, 468, 61, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066959

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2683 2015

  24. [24]

    A., et al

    Drory, N., MacDonald, N., Bershady, M. A., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 77, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/149/2/77 2015

  25. [25]

    Ferguson, A. M. N., Gallagher, J. S., & Wyse, R. F. G. 1998, AJ, 116, 673, doi: 10.1086/300456

    work page doi:10.1086/300456 1998

  26. [26]

    L., Weinberg, M

    Filion, C., McClure, R. L., Weinberg, M. D., D’Onghia, E., & Daniel, K. J. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 276, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1832

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1832 2023

  27. [27]

    L., & Massa, D

    Fitzpatrick, E. L., & Massa, D. 2007, ApJ, 663, 320, doi: 10.1086/518158

    work page doi:10.1086/518158 2007

  28. [28]

    2016, MNRAS, 462, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw120

    Fragkoudi, F., Athanassoula, E., & Bosma, A. 2016, MNRAS, 462, L41, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw120

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw120 2016

  29. [29]

    M., et al

    Franchetto, A., Mingozzi, M., Poggianti, B. M., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 28, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2510

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2510 2021

  30. [30]

    2019, MNRAS, 488, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz085

    Fraser-McKelvie, A., Merrifield, M., Arag´ on-Salamanca, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L6, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz085

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz085 2019

  31. [31]

    E., Siegmund, W

    Gunn, J. E., Siegmund, W. A., Mannery, E. J., et al. 2006, AJ, 131, 2332, doi: 10.1086/500975

    work page doi:10.1086/500975 2006

  32. [32]

    E., Bamford, S

    Hart, R. E., Bamford, S. P., Willett, K. W., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 3663, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1588

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1588 2016

  33. [33]

    E., Bamford, S

    Hart, R. E., Bamford, S. P., Hayes, W. B., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 2263, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2137

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2137 2017

  34. [34]

    2023, MNRAS, 525, 3318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1244

    Hawkins, K. 2023, MNRAS, 525, 3318, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1244

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1244 2023

  35. [35]

    J., Pettitt, A

    Iles, E. J., Pettitt, A. R., Okamoto, T., & Kawata, D. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3377

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3377 2023

  36. [36]

    F., Jogee, S., Kewley, L., et al

    Kaplan, K. F., Jogee, S., Kewley, L., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1642, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1422

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1422 2016

  37. [37]

    M., Tremonti, C., et al

    Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2003.07154.x 2003

  38. [38]

    T., Hobbs, G

    Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10859.x 2006

  39. [39]

    J., Nicholls, D

    Kewley, L. J., Nicholls, D. C., & Sutherland, R. S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 511, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051832 2019

  40. [40]

    Larson, R. B. 1974, MNRAS, 169, 229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/169.2.229 —. 1976, MNRAS, 176, 31, doi: 10.1093/mnras/176.1.31

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/169.2.229 1974

  41. [41]

    2008, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 387, 1755, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13382.x

    Lintott, C. J., Schawinski, K., Slosar, A., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 389, 1179, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13689.x 2008

  42. [42]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 1022, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2732

    Lu, S., Zhu, K., Cappellari, M., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1022, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2732

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2732 2023

  43. [43]

    A., Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., et al

    Lutz, K. A., Saintonge, A., Catinella, B., et al. 2021, A&A, 649, A39, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038961

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038961 2021

  44. [44]

    Lynden-Bell, D., & Kalnajs, A. J. 1972, MNRAS, 157, 1, doi: 10.1093/mnras/157.1.1

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/157.1.1 1972

  45. [45]

    J., Jameson , A., van Straten , W., et al

    Gnerucci, A. 2010, MNRAS, 408, 2115, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17291.x 2010

  46. [46]

    1994, ApJ, 424, 599, doi: 10.1086/173917

    Martin, P., & Roy, J.-R. 1994, ApJ, 424, 599, doi: 10.1086/173917

    work page doi:10.1086/173917 1994

  47. [47]

    J., Jameson , A., van Straten , W., et al

    Masters, K. L., Nichol, R. C., Hoyle, B., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 2026, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17834.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17834.x 2011

  48. [48]

    L., Lintott, C

    Masters, K. L., Lintott, C. J., Hart, R. E., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1808, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1153

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1153 2019

  49. [49]

    1989, MNRAS, 239, 885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/239.3.885

    Matteucci, F., & Francois, P. 1989, MNRAS, 239, 885, doi: 10.1093/mnras/239.3.885

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/239.3.885 1989

  50. [50]

    Mengistu, P., & Masters, K. L. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 35, doi: 10.3847/2515-5172/acc032

    work page doi:10.3847/2515-5172/acc032 2023

  51. [51]

    2008, MNRAS, 386, L82, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00466.x

    Tissera, P. 2008, MNRAS, 386, L82, doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00466.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2008.00466.x 2008

  52. [52]

    G., Lee, J

    Momcheva, I. G., Lee, J. C., Ly, C., et al. 2013, AJ, 145, 47, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/47

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/145/2/47 2013

  53. [53]

    D., Combes, F., & Semelin, B

    Montuori, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Combes, F., & Semelin, B. 2010, A&A, 518, A56, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014304 22

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014304 2010

  54. [54]

    M., Heckman, T

    Moran, S. M., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 745, 66, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/66

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/745/1/66 2012

  55. [55]

    B., & Abraham, R

    Nair, P. B., & Abraham, R. G. 2010, ApJL, 714, L260, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/L260

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/714/2/l260 2010

  56. [56]

    V., Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H

    Nedkova, K. V., Rafelski, M., Teplitz, H. I., et al. 2024, ApJ, 970, 188, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ede

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4ede 2024

  57. [57]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 4844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2868

    Neumann, J., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 4844, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2868

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2868 2021

  58. [58]

    E., Burkhart, B., Wetzel, A., et al

    Orr, M. E., Burkhart, B., Wetzel, A., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.14159. https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.14159

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Pagel, B. E. J., Edmunds, M. G., Blackwell, D. E., Chun, M. S., & Smith, G. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95, doi: 10.1093/mnras/189.1.95

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/189.1.95 1979

  60. [60]

    2021, MNRAS, 502, 5508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab449

    Parikh, T., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 5508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab449

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab449 2021

  61. [61]

    Perez, J., Michel-Dansac, L., & Tissera, P. B. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 580, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19300.x P´ erez-Montero, E., Garc´ ıa-Benito, R., V´ ılchez, J. M., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A62, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628601

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19300.x 2011

  62. [62]

    Pettini, M., & Pagel, B. E. J. 2004, MNRAS, 348, L59, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07591.x 2004

  63. [63]

    2016, MNRAS, 455, 2308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2397

    Pezzulli, G., & Fraternali, F. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 2308, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2397

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2397 2016

  64. [64]

    S., & Tautvaiˇ sien˙ e, G

    Pilyugin, L. S., & Tautvaiˇ sien˙ e, G. 2024, A&A, 682, A41, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202347032

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202347032 2024

  65. [65]

    Rupke, D. S. N., Kewley, L. J., & Chien, L. H. 2010, ApJ, 723, 1255, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/723/2/1255 S´ anchez, S. F., Kennicutt, R. C., Gil de Paz, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 538, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201117353 S´ anchez, S. F., Rosales-Ortega, F. F., Iglesias-P´ aramo, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 563, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322343 S´ anchez, S. F.,...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/723/2/1255 2010

  66. [66]

    L., Tremonti, C., Pace, Z., et al

    Schaefer, A. L., Tremonti, C., Pace, Z., et al. 2019, ApJ, 884, 156, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab43ca Sch¨ onrich, R., & Binney, J. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 203, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14750.x

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab43ca 2019

  67. [67]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 2468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2339

    Poetrodjojo, H. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2468, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2339

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2339 2021

  68. [68]

    M., Khelil, A., & Ordower, J

    Scudder, J. M., Khelil, A., & Ordower, J. Z. 2025, MNRAS, 536, 2149, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2719

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2719 2025

  69. [69]

    A., & Binney, J

    Sellwood, J. A., & Binney, J. J. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 785, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05806.x 2002

  70. [70]

    A., & Masters, K

    Sellwood, J. A., & Masters, K. L. 2022, ARA&A, 60, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-104505

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-104505 2022

  71. [71]

    A., McGee, R

    Shaver, P. A., McGee, R. X., Newton, L. M., Danks, A. C., & Pottasch, S. R. 1983, MNRAS, 204, 53, doi: 10.1093/mnras/204.1.53

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/204.1.53 1983

  72. [72]

    A., Gunn, J

    Smee, S. A., Gunn, J. E., Uomoto, A., et al. 2013, AJ, 146, 32, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/32 2013

  73. [73]

    1953, ApJ, 118, 106, doi: 10.1086/145730

    Spitzer, Lyman, J., & Schwarzschild, M. 1953, ApJ, 118, 106, doi: 10.1086/145730

    work page doi:10.1086/145730 1953

  74. [74]

    2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140437

    Steigman, G. 2007, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 57, 463, doi: 10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140437

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.nucl.56.080805.140437 2007

  75. [75]

    A., Weinberg, D

    Strauss, M. A., Weinberg, D. H., Lupton, R. H., et al. 2002, AJ, 124, 1810, doi: 10.1086/342343

    work page doi:10.1086/342343 2002

  76. [76]

    A., Heckman, T

    Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898, doi: 10.1086/423264 van Zee, L., Salzer, J. J., Haynes, M. P., O’Donoghue, A. A., & Balonek, T. J. 1998, AJ, 116, 2805, doi: 10.1086/300647

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/423264 2004

  77. [77]

    B., & Edmunds, M

    Vila-Costas, M. B., & Edmunds, M. G. 1992, MNRAS, 259, 121, doi: 10.1093/mnras/259.1.121

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/259.1.121 1992

  78. [78]

    A., Bundy, K., Diamond-Stanic, A

    Wake, D. A., Bundy, K., Diamond-Stanic, A. M., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 86, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa7ecc 2017

  79. [79]

    2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2919

    Walmsley, M., G´ eron, T., Kruk, S., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4768, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2919

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2919 2023

  80. [80]

    J., Bamford, S

    Willett, K., Lintott, C. J., Bamford, S. P., et al. 2013, 221, 340.05

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.