Chemical enrichment in LINERs from MaNGA. I. Tracing Oxygen and Nitrogen Nuclear Abundances in LINERs with Varied Ionizing Sources

Borja P\'erez-D\'iaz; Enrique P\'erez-Montero; Igor A. Zinchenko; Jos\'e M. V\'ilchez

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 89 references

Chemical enrichment in LINERs from MaNGA. I. Tracing Oxygen and Nitrogen Nuclear Abundances in LINERs with Varied Ionizing Sources

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio of LINER nuclear gas is nearly independent of the assumed ionizing source and is suprasolar, while oxygen abundances shift with that assumption.

desk verdict A careful, useful paper on LINER abundances whose central N/O robustness claim is solid among photoionization models but is not yet tested against the shock mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16611 v2 pith:2P5Y5CJA submitted 2024-11-25 astro-ph.GA

Borja Pérez-Díaz , Enrique Pérez-Montero , Igor A. Zinchenko , José M. Vílchez This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords LINERschemicalabundancesnitrogen-to-oxygenratiooxygenabundancephotoionizationmodelsMaNGAsurveyactivegalacticnucleipost-AGBstars

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 paper aims to establish that the chemical enrichment of LINER nuclei can be traced reliably by the nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio even though the ionizing source of LINERs is debated. For 105 MaNGA galaxies with LINER-like central spaxels, the authors fit optical emission lines with photoionization model grids built for three competing ionizing sources: standard AGN spectra, hot post-AGB stars, and advection-dominated accretion flows. The derived oxygen abundance depends strongly on the assumed source, with median $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H}) = 8.69$ (solar) for AGN models and $8.53$ for pAGB models. The derived $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$ barely moves, clustering around $-0.69$ to $-0.79$, slightly above the solar ratio of $-0.86$. If correct, this makes N/O a robust abundance tracer for the most common type of active galaxy in the local Universe.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Bayesian-like code HII-CHI-Mistry, which estimates $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$, $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$, and the ionization parameter $\log(U)$ by comparing observed line ratios $[\mathrm{O\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\beta$, $[\mathrm{Ne\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta$, $[\mathrm{O\,III}]/\mathrm{H}\beta$, $[\mathrm{N\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\beta$, and $[\mathrm{S\,II}]/\mathrm{H}\beta$ against precomputed grids of photoionization models. For each ionizing source the authors build 4,928 Cloudy models spanning $6.9<12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})<9.1$, $-2.0<\log(\mathrm{N/O})<0.0$, and $-4.0<\log(U)<-0.5$, at fixed density $500\,\mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, standard dust, and two stopping criteria. The grids differ only in the assumed spectral energy distribution: AGN power laws with $\alpha_{\mathrm{OX}}$ from $-0.8$ to $-2.0$, post-AGB atmospheres at $T_{\mathrm{eff}}=5\times10^4$, $1\times10^5$, and $1.5\times10^5$ K, and an ADAF average SED. Because N/O is largely set by the $[\mathrm{N\,II}]/[\mathrm{O\,II}]$ ratio while O/H is tied to the harder ionization stages, the N/O output survives the grid choice and the O/H output does not.

What would settle it

Measure auroral lines such as $[\mathrm{O\,III}]\,\lambda4363$ or $[\mathrm{N\,II}]\,\lambda5755$ in a sample of LINER nuclei; a direct-method $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$ that comes out solar or subsolar would contradict the suprasolar model-based values, while agreement would confirm them. Alternatively, split the sample by X-ray detection: if X-ray-bright and X-ray-quiet LINERs give the same $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$, the ratio is genuinely source-independent, and if they differ, the apparent invariance is a grid artifact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the nitrogen-to-oxygen abundance ratio in LINER nuclear gas is insensitive to the assumed ionizing source and is suprasolar, whereas the oxygen abundance is not. Across AGN grids with seven spectral slopes, post-AGB grids at three effective temperatures, and an ADAF grid, the median $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$ stays in the range roughly $-0.79$ to $-0.69$, while median $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$ moves from about $8.69$ under AGN models to $8.53$ under pAGB models. The paper further reports that under pAGB ionization the N/O versus O/H relation becomes a strong anticorrelation, with Pearson coefficients around $-0.62$ to $-0.71$, which would require inflows or outflows to explain, while the AGN assumption keeps LINERs inside the scatter of the standard enrichment relation. A pAGB-only scenario also requires about $3.2\times10^4$ ionizing post-AGB stars within 1 kpc, a number the authors argue is hard to reconcile with observed globular cluster counts. The authors conclude that AGN activity is the chemically conservative interpretation, with old stellar populations possibly contributing but not uniquely powering the emission.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each family of photoionization models maps the observed five line ratios to one unique set of gas-phase abundances, with fixed density, standard dust, no shocks, and a single ionizing SED per grid; if the real gas is multiphase or shock-excited, the medians shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is right, $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$ can be used as an ionizing-source-independent chemical enrichment indicator for LINERs, removing one major systematic from studies of the most common local active galaxies.
Oxygen abundances of LINER nuclei should be reported with the assumed ionizing source made explicit, since the same line ratios yield solar medians under AGN SEDs and subsolar medians under pAGB SEDs.
Under the AGN interpretation, LINER nuclei follow the standard N/O versus O/H enrichment relation, so no exotic inflow or outflow is required to explain their chemistry.
Under the pAGB interpretation, a strong N/O versus O/H anticorrelation appears, implying gas flows that scale with chemical abundance or some other non-standard enrichment channel.
The nuclear $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$ estimates agree with values extrapolated from each galaxy's radial gradient, while nuclear $12+\log(\mathrm{O/H})$ does not, reinforcing N/O as the more trustworthy nuclear tracer.

Reading between the lines

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

An implication the authors leave implicit is that the gradient comparison is testable: if nuclear N/O matches the radial extrapolation while O/H does not, the central gas may have been nitrogen-enriched without corresponding oxygen enrichment, for example by secondary nitrogen production in intermediate-mass stars or by selective removal of oxygen-rich gas.
The N/O invariance across SED families could be used to calibrate cheap empirical nitrogen-based metallicity indicators for LINERs, since existing N-based calibrations inherit the O/H ambiguity this paper documents.
Adding shock-dominated photoionization models to the same Bayesian machinery would test whether the pAGB anticorrelation is an artifact of the shock contribution that all grids explicitly omit.
A natural next observational check is to compare X-ray-detected and X-ray-quiet LINERs: if their derived $\log(\mathrm{N/O})$ values agree, the source-independence is genuine, and if not, the apparent invariance is a grid artifact.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this paper gives observers a practical result—log(N/O) in LINER nuclei is nearly invariant across AGN, pAGB, and ADAF photoionization scenarios, while 12+log(O/H) shifts with the assumed SED. The medians are suprasolar N/O (-0.69 to -0.79) and solar-ish O/H (8.69 for AGN, 8.53 for pAGB). That claim is the load-bearing result, and it is mostly supported by the internal comparisons in Fig. A.2 and the agreement with HII-region gradient extrapolations in Fig. 9.

What the paper does well: the sample is decent (105 MaNGA LINERs), the grids are comparable across three SED families with consistent assumptions, and the authors are transparent about their priors, the restricted ionization parameter range, and the post-hoc exclusion of low-T pAGB models. They also make a sensible physical argument against pAGB as the dominant ionizer by counting the required stars. The public code and full data tables are a plus.

Soft spots, in proportion: the biggest one is also the one the authors openly flag. Shocks are a canonical LINER mechanism, but all grids are pure Cloudy photoionization, and fast radiative shocks can produce LINER-like [NII] and [OI] ratios while carrying little sensitivity to true gas-phase N/O. So the "robustness" result is really robustness among three pure-photoionization SED families, not against the shock mechanism. The suprasolar N/O scale could in principle absorb shock-enhanced [NII]. The Fig. 9 consistency check is reassuring, but as the authors use the same photoionization machinery for both nuclear and HII region estimates, it is not an independent test. This is a limitation of scope, not a fatal flaw, because the paper says so explicitly and frames its conclusions accordingly.

Minor: the fixed density of 500 cm^-3, standard dust, and single-phase gas are assumptions typical for this kind of work, but they do affect the absolute scale. The AGN alpha_OX=-1.2 model behaving differently in the N/O-O/H correlation is a curiosity that could use a brief physical explanation.

Bottom line: this is a solid subfield paper. It is worth a serious referee, and I would cite it if I worked on LINER abundances. My own verdict is close to the reader's ACCEPT, though I would push the authors in revision to add a shock-grid test or at least an explicit paragraph on how shocks might alter the N/O scale. That would turn a good paper into a definitive one.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a systematic analysis of nuclear oxygen and nitrogen abundances in 105 LINERs from the MaNGA survey. The authors construct photoionization model grids for three ionizing-source scenarios (AGN with varying α_OX, pAGB stars with three effective temperatures, and ADAF) and use the HII-CHI-Mistry code to derive 12+log(O/H), log(N/O), and log(U) from optical line ratios. They find that oxygen abundances depend on the assumed source (median 12+log(O/H) = 8.69 for AGN, 8.53 for pAGB), whereas the derived log(N/O) is nearly independent of the assumed source, with median values around -0.69 to -0.79, i.e., suprasolar. They further examine the N/O-O/H relation, the mass-metallicity and mass-N/O relations, and compare nuclear estimates with extrapolations from HII-region gradients. The paper concludes that the pAGB scenario requires a complex inflow/outflow picture, whereas the AGN scenario is consistent with standard enrichment, and it acknowledges that shocks are not modeled.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper makes a valuable contribution: it provides the first large-sample, spatially resolved abundance analysis of LINER nuclei across multiple ionizing-source scenarios, and it identifies log(N/O) as a comparatively robust diagnostic. The analysis is reproducible in design: it uses the public HII-CHI-Mistry code, clearly specifies the Cloudy grids, and provides full tables at CDS. The internal consistency check against HII-region gradients (Fig. 9) is a useful falsifiable cross-check. The claim that N/O is largely independent of the assumed SED family is well supported among the pure-photoionization grids (Fig. A.2). However, the absolute N/O scale and the inference of suprasolar values rest on the assumption that fast radiative shocks, a canonical LINER mechanism, do not contribute significantly; this assumption is stated but not tested.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 5.3, Sec. 3.2] The omission of fast radiative shocks is load-bearing for the central claim. The Introduction identifies shocks (Dopita & Sutherland 1995; Allen et al. 2008) as one of the three canonical LINER ionization mechanisms, but all grids in Sec. 3.2 are pure Cloudy photoionization models, and Sec. 5.3 states that shocks were omitted "due to the large number of free parameters required." In fast shocks, the hot post-shock gas and the photoionized precursor produce [N ii]/Hβ and [O i]/Hα ratios that mimic photoionization with little sensitivity to the gas-phase N/O; a pure-photoionization fit may therefore absorb the excess [N ii] into an overestimated log(N/O). The comparison in Fig. 9 with HII-region gradients does not resolve this concern, because the HII-region abundances are derived from the same pure-photoionization methodology. I request a quantitative test: for a representative subset, fit grids that include shock+precursor components (e.g., MAPPINGS) or use literature shock models to estimate the potential bias on the median log(N/O). Without such a test, the statement "the nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio we derived is much less affected by the assumptions on the ionizing source" (Abstract) is established only within the restricted space of pure-photoionization SEDs, not across the full range of proposed LINER mechanisms.
[Sec. 3.2] The description of the ionization parameter range is internally inconsistent, and the imposed prior may affect the results. The text states that log(U) "varied in the range -4.0 < log(U) < -0.5 in steps of 0.25 dex," but then says the parameter was "preliminarily constrained in the range -4.0 < log(U) < -2.5 based on previous findings." If the grid actually covers only -4.0 to -2.5, the sentence should be corrected; if the full -4.0 to -0.5 grid is computed but subsequent inference is restricted to -2.5, the paper should justify that the truncation does not bias the derived log(N/O), since log(U) and log(N/O) can be degenerate in the fitted line ratios. Please clarify which range was used and report the sensitivity of the median abundances to this choice.

minor comments (6)

[Table 1, Sec. 2.2] The text says the preliminary sample contains 429 galaxies, but the "Total" row of Table 1 sums to 428 (329 + 48 + 51). Please reconcile this discrepancy.
[Fig. 5 caption] The caption says "The solid back line represents the fit"; this should be "solid black line."
[Sec. 5.3, after Eq. (2)] The phrase "all these stars ionize the gas nowadays today" is awkward; suggest "these stars ionize the gas at the present day."
[Data availability] The line "Tables B1–B5B.5 are available" contains a typo; it should read "Tables B.1–B.5."
[Sec. 3.2] The total number of models is given as 54,208, which equals 4,928 × 11; it would be helpful to state explicitly that this corresponds to 7 AGN SEDs + 3 pAGB temperatures + 1 ADAF.
[Sec. 4.1 and Sec. 5] The exclusion of pAGB models with Teff = 5×10^4 K from the discussion (Sec. 5) should be stated earlier, since Table 3 shows these models yield the highest median log(N/O) (-0.58), which would otherwise appear to contradict the robustness claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: N/O and O/H are standard grid-fit estimates, and the N/O invariance claim is an inter-grid comparison, not an input assumption.

full rationale

The paper derives chemical abundances by fitting observed optical line ratios against Cloudy photoionization grids within the HCm Bayesian code; 12+log(O/H), log(N/O), and log(U) are free grid parameters, and the text explicitly states that no relation was assumed between them (Sec. 3.1). The central claim that log(N/O) is nearly independent of the assumed ionizing source is not built into the inputs: it emerges from comparing 4928-model grids per SED family (AGN, pAGB, ADAF) and is displayed as one-to-one correlations in Fig. A.2. The result is an abundance estimate, not a prediction forced by construction: no equation in the paper reduces a predicted quantity to a fitted input. The self-citations that exist (HCm, the log(U) prior range, and previous AGN-grid conventions) are methodological tool citations and grid prior choices, not load-bearing inferences that pre-encode the result. The N/O versus O/H trends are checked against external literature relations and against the galaxies' own HII-region gradient extrapolations. The explicit omission of fast radiative shocks (Sec. 5.3) is a genuine completeness limitation that could bias the absolute N/O scale by absorbing shock-enhanced [N ii] into a higher fitted log(N/O); however, that is a model-family assumption and a correctness risk, not a circular step in the derivation chain.

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

The paper introduces no new entities. Its central results are conditional on a set of photoionization modeling assumptions: fixed density and dust, a restricted ionization parameter prior, and three SED families; the N/O robustness conclusion is the least sensitive to these assumptions, while O/H medians shift by up to 0.2 dex across SEDs.

free parameters (5)

log(U) prior range = -4.0 to -2.5
The ionization parameter grid is preliminarily constrained to [-4.0, -2.5] based on previous studies to break degeneracies in line-ratio diagnostics; this prior influences the derived O/H values (Sec 3.2).
Gas density n_e = 500 cm^-3 (nuclear), 100 cm^-3 (HII regions)
Fixed density in all Cloudy grids; density affects line ratios used to infer abundances, and changing it could alter O/H estimates (Sec 3.2).
Dust-to-gas ratio = standard (unspecified)
Grids include a standard dust-to-gas ratio; authors note this explains a ~0.17 dex offset in O/H relative to the dust-free models of Oliveira et al. (2024b) (Sec 5.1).
pAGB ionizing photon rate per star = 5 x 10^46 s^-1
Used in Eq. (2) to estimate the number of pAGB stars required to power the observed H alpha; this literature value drives the globular cluster count argument that disfavors pAGB ionization (Sec 5.3).
pAGB progenitor mass range and IMF = 1.5-8 Msun, Salpeter IMF, M_min=0.5 Msun, M_max=20 Msun
Used in Eqs. (3)-(4) to compute the probability of a pAGB star and the required number of globular clusters; assumptions affect the strength of the pAGB disfavoring (Sec 5.3).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The observed optical line ratios are produced by a single-zone, ionization-bounded, constant-density photoionized gas in equilibrium.
The HII-CHI-Mistry method models the nuclear emission as a single-zone Cloudy grid; any contribution from shocks, DIG, or multiple gas phases is neglected (Sec 3.1, Sec 5.3).
domain assumption The three SED families (AGN power law + big blue bump, pAGB NLTE atmospheres, ADAF average SED) bracket the true ionizing spectral energy distribution of LINERs.
The abundance estimates are conditional on these SED choices; shocks are explicitly omitted (Sec 3.2, Sec 5.3).
domain assumption The reddening correction is valid under case B recombination with Halpha/Hbeta=3.1, n_e~500 cm^-3, T_e~10^4 K, and a Howarth (1983) extinction curve with R_V=3.1.
Applied to all line ratios before abundance estimation; wrong assumptions shift line ratios (Sec 3.1).
domain assumption Classical stellar population synthesis and IMF assumptions (Salpeter, 0.5-20 Msun) plus globular cluster specific frequency provide a valid upper limit for pAGB counts.
Used in Sec 5.3 to argue pAGB is disfavored; depends on stellar evolution theory and a simplified star-formation history.
domain assumption Chemical evolution reference relations (Andrews & Martini 2013, Belfiore et al. 2015, Curti et al. 2020) are representative of normal galaxies.
Used as external benchmarks for MZR and N/O-O/H comparisons (Sec 4.3, Sec 5.2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chemical enrichment in LINERs from MaNGA. I. Tracing Oxygen and Nitrogen Nuclear Abundances in LINERs with Varied Ionizing Sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2P5Y5CJA

@misc{pith2026241116611,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chemical enrichment in LINERs from MaNGA. I. Tracing Oxygen and Nitrogen Nuclear Abundances in LINERs with Varied Ionizing Sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2P5Y5CJA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16611}
}

read the original abstract

The chemical enrichment in low-ionization nuclear emission-line regions (LINERs) is still an issue with spatial resolution spectroscopic data due to the lack of studies and the uncertainties in the nature of their ionizing source, despite being the most abundant type of active galaxies in the nearby Universe. Considering different scenarios for the ionizing source (hot old stellar populations, active galactic nuclei (AGN) or inefficient accretion disks), we analyze the implications of these assumptions to constrain the chemical content of the gas-phase interstellar medium (ISM). We used a sample of 105 galaxies from Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory (MaNGA) survey, whose nuclear central spaxels show LINER-like emission. For each scenario considered, we built a grid of photoionization models (4928 models for each considered ionizing source) which are later used in the open-source code HII-CHI-Mistry, allowing us to estimate chemical abundance ratios such as 12+log(O/H) or log(N/O) and constrain the ionization parameter that characterize the ionized ISM in those galaxies. We obtain that oxygen abundances in the nuclear region of LINER-like galaxies spread over a wide range 8.08 < 12+log(O/H) < 8.89, with a median solar value (in agreement with previous studies) if AGN models are considered. Nevertheless, the derived nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio is much less affected by the assumptions on the ionizing source, and point towards suprasolar values (log(N/O) = -0.69). By comparing the different analyzed scenarios, we show that if hot old stellar populations were responsible of the ionization of the ISM a complex picture (such as outflows and/or inflows scaling with galaxy chemical abundance) would be needed to explain the chemical enrichment history, whereas the assumption of AGN activity is compatible with the standard scenario found in most galaxies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16611 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Diagnostic diagrams of the central spaxels in our sample of galaxies. The color bar shows the equivalent width for Hα (WHα ). The solid and dashed lines represent the region limits as defined by Kewley et al. (2006), with the exception of the separation between Seyfert 2 and LINERs in the [NII]/Hα diagram, which was taken from Cid Fernandes et al. (2010). Each region is labeled as follows: SFG for star-forming galax… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** WHAN diagram, showing the region demarcations as provided by Cid Fernandes et al. (2010, 2011). The color code represents the classification as given by the BPT diagrams (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Histograms for 12+log(O/H) nuclear abundance ratios for LINERs for each photoionization grid of models. The step-filled gray histogram corresponds to all LINERs in our sample. The step blue and red histograms correspond to wAGNs and RGs, respectively. The vertical solid lines represent the median values for each distribution. 4.3. Mass-metallicity relation The galaxy mass assembly is tied to the enrichment of the ga… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Relation of the nuclear estimations of log(N/O) and 12+log(O/H) in our sample of LINERs for each grid of photoionization models. The first plot shows the typical errors for the data. The solid back line represents the fit provided by Coziol et al. (1999), the dotted li…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Mass-metallicity relation determinations in the nuclear regions of our sample of LINERs for different grids of photoionization models. The first plot shows the typical errors for the data. The dashed line represents the fit from Curti et al. (2020), and the gray shaded…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Mass-NO relation based on the metallicity determinations in the nuclear regions of our sample of LINERs for different grids of photoionization models. The first plot shows the typical errors for the data. The dashed line represents the fit from Andrews & Martini (2013…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Histograms of the difference between 12+log(O/H)Nucl as estimated in the central regions using different photoionization models and 12+log(O/H)0, as extrapolated from metallicity gradients. The step-filled gray histogram corresponds to all LINERs in our sample. The ste…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: log(N/O) vs. 12+log(O/H) diagram for our sample of LINERs. The dots represent galaxies classified as wAGN, and the chemical abundances correspond to AGN models with αOX = −1.6. The stars correspond to galaxies classified as RG whose chemical abundances were estimated…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: WHAN diagram for the LINER-like nuclear regions in our sample (gray dots) showing the coverage of the different grids of photoionization models. The grid of models was obtained by limiting the oxygen abundance to 12+log(O/H)=8.6 and employing different values of the …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

[1]

2022, ApJS, 259, 35

Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

2022
[2]

G., Groves, B

Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20 Amorín, R., Pérez-Montero, E., Vílchez, J. M., & Papaderos, P. 2012, ApJ, 749, 185 Amorín, R. O., Pérez-Montero, E., & Vílchez, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 715, L128

2008
[3]

Andrews, B. H. & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140

2013
[4]

2010, A&A, 519, A40

Annibali, F., Bressan, A., Rampazzo, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A40

2010
[5]

V ., Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., et al

Asari, N. V ., Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 263

2007
[6]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Article number, page 18 of 24 Borja Pérez-Díaz et al.: LINERs from MaNGA. I. Nuclear abundances of oxygen and nitrogen Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156...

2009
[7]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

1981
[8]

2015, MNRAS, 449, 867

Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Bundy, K., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 867

2015

Show all 89 references

[9]

Bica, E., Ortolani, S., Barbuy, B., & Oliveira, R. A. P. 2024, A&A, 687, A201

2024
[10]

G., Stasi´nska, G., & Bruzual, A

Binette, L., Magris, C. G., Stasi´nska, G., & Bruzual, A. G. 1994, A&A, 292, 13

1994
[11]

R., Bershady, M

Blanton, M. R., Bershady, M. A., Abolfathi, B., et al. 2017, AJ, 154, 28

2017
[12]

& Charlot, S

Bruzual, G. & Charlot, S. 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000

2003
[13]

A., Law, D

Bundy, K., Bershady, M. A., Law, D. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

2015
[14]

R., Feruglio, C., Hickox, R

Capelo, P. R., Feruglio, C., Hickox, R. C., & Tombesi, F. 2023, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics, 126

2023
[15]

P., Dors, O

Carvalho, S. P., Dors, O. L., Cardaci, M. V ., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 5675

2020
[16]

2003, ApJ, 586, L133 Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Stasi ´nska, G., & Gomes, J

Chabrier, G. 2003, ApJ, 586, L133 Cid Fernandes, R., Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Stasi ´nska, G., & Gomes, J. M. 2005, MNRAS, 358, 363 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi ´nska, G., Mateus, A., & Vale Asari, N. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 1687 Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., Schlickmann, M. S., et a...

2003
[17]

& Aldrovandi, S

Contini, M. & Aldrovandi, S. M. V . 1983, A&A, 127, 15

1983
[18]

Coziol, R., Reyes, R. E. C., Considère, S., Davoust, E., & Contini, T. 1999, A&A, 345, 733

1999
[19]

2020, MNRAS, 491, 944

Curti, M., Mannucci, F., Cresci, G., & Maiolino, R. 2020, MNRAS, 491, 944

2020
[20]

H., Fields, B

Cyburt, R. H., Fields, B. D., Olive, K. A., & Yeh, T.-H. 2016, Reviews of Modern Physics, 88, 015004

2016
[21]

L., Groves, B., Kewley, L

Davies, R. L., Groves, B., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1616 de Nicola, S., Marconi, A., & Longo, G. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 600

2016
[22]

Dopita, M. A. & Sutherland, R. S. 1995, ApJ, 455, 468

1995
[23]

L., Cardaci, M

Dors, O. L., Cardaci, M. V ., Hägele, G. F., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 4102

2015
[24]

L., Valerdi, M., Riffel, R

Dors, O. L., Valerdi, M., Riffel, R. A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 1969 Duarte Puertas, S., Vilchez, J. M., Iglesias-Páramo, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, A186

2023
[25]

Eckert, D., Gaspari, M., Gastaldello, F., Le Brun, A. M. C., & O’Sullivan, E. 2021, Universe, 7, 142

2021
[26]

Edmunds, M. G. 1990, MNRAS, 246, 678

1990
[27]

J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al

Ferland, G. J., Chatzikos, M., Guzmán, F., et al. 2017, Rev. Mexicana Astron. Astrofis., 53, 385 Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A., Pérez-Montero, E., Vílchez, J. M., Amorín, R., &

2017
[28]

2021, A&A, 652, A23

Spinoglio, L. 2021, A&A, 652, A23

2021
[29]

Gaskell, C. M. 2009, New A Rev., 53, 140

2009
[30]

Gitti, M., Brighenti, F., & McNamara, B. R. 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 950641

2012
[31]

2021, MNRAS, 508, 719

Grisoni, V ., Matteucci, F., & Romano, D. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 719

2021
[32]

Henry, R. B. C., Edmunds, M. G., & Köppen, J. 2000, ApJ, 541, 660

2000
[33]

C., Filippenko, A

Ho, L. C., Filippenko, A. V ., & Sargent, W. L. W. 1997, ApJS, 112, 315

1997
[34]

C., Shields, J

Ho, L. C., Shields, J. C., & Filippenko, A. V . 1993, ApJ, 410, 567

1993
[35]

Howarth, I. D. 1983, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 203, 301

1983
[36]

Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 90 Ili´c, D., Shapovalova, A. I., Popovi ´c, L. ˇC., et al. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 12

2007
[37]

M., Tremonti, C., et al

Kauffmann, G., Heckman, T. M., Tremonti, C., et al. 2003, MNRAS, 346, 1055

2003
[38]

J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T

Kewley, L. J., Groves, B., Kauffmann, G., & Heckman, T. 2006, MNRAS, 372, 961

2006
[39]

I., & Lugaro, M

Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179

2020
[40]

A., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., & Pizagno, J

Kobulnicky, H. A., Kennicutt, Robert C., J., & Pizagno, J. L. 1999, ApJ, 514, 544

1999
[41]

Kobulnicky, H. A. & Skillman, E. D. 1996, ApJ, 471, 211

1996
[42]

A., Skillman, E

Kobulnicky, H. A., Skillman, E. D., Roy, J.-R., Walsh, J. R., & Rosa, M. R. 1997, ApJ, 477, 679 Köppen, J. & Edmunds, M. G. 1999, MNRAS, 306, 317 Köppen, J. & Hensler, G. 2005, A&A, 434, 531

1997
[43]

C., Oliveira, C

Krabbe, A. C., Oliveira, C. B., Zinchenko, I. A., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 2087

2021
[44]

L., Irwin, M

Kumari, N., James, B. L., Irwin, M. J., Amorín, R., & Pérez-Montero, E. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3793

2018
[45]

R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al

Law, D. R., Cherinka, B., Yan, R., et al. 2016, AJ, 152, 83

2016
[46]

F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S

Lequeux, J., Peimbert, M., Rayo, J. F., Serrano, A., & Torres-Peimbert, S. 1979, A&A, 500, 145 López-Sánchez, Á. R. & Esteban, C. 2010, A&A, 517, A85

1979
[47]

& Mannucci, F

Maiolino, R. & Mannucci, F. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 3

2019
[48]

K., Rakshit, S., Stalin, C

Mandal, A. K., Rakshit, S., Stalin, C. S., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 502, 2140

2021
[49]

2024, A&A, 689, A78 Márquez, I., Masegosa, J., González-Martin, O., et al

Marconi, A., Amiri, A., Feltre, A., et al. 2024, A&A, 689, A78 Márquez, I., Masegosa, J., González-Martin, O., et al. 2017, Frontiers in Astron- omy and Space Sciences, 4, 34

2024
[50]

2006, MNRAS, 370, 721

Mateus, A., Sodré, L., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 721

2006
[51]

McClure, R. D. & van den Bergh, S. 1968, AJ, 73, 1008 Méndez-Delgado, J. E., Esteban, C., García-Rojas, J., Kreckel, K., & Peimbert, M. 2023, Nature, 618, 249 Mollá, M., García-Vargas, M. L., & Bressan, A. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 451 Mollá, M., Vílchez, J. M., Gavilán, M., & Díaz, A...

1968
[52]

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

Montuori, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., Combes, F., & Semelin, B. 2010, A&A, 518, A56

2010
[53]

2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 42

Morganti, R. 2017, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, 4, 42

2017
[54]

S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., & Eracleous, M

Nemmen, R. S., Storchi-Bergmann, T., & Eracleous, M. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 2804

2014
[55]

Nobels, F. S. J., Schaye, J., Schaller, M., Bahé, Y . M., & Chaikin, E. 2022, MN- RAS, 515, 4838

2022
[56]

B., Dors, O

Oliveira, C. B., Dors, O. L., Zinchenko, I. A., et al. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02043

arXiv
[57]

B., Krabbe, A

Oliveira, C. B., Krabbe, A. C., Hernandez-Jimenez, J. A., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 6093

2022
[58]

Osterbrock, D. E. & Ferland, G. J. 2006, Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei

2006
[59]

J., Stevens, J

Page, M. J., Stevens, J. A., Ivison, R. J., & Carrera, F. J. 2004, ApJ, 611, L85

2004
[60]

1967, ApJ, 150, 825

Peimbert, M. 1967, ApJ, 150, 825

1967
[61]

& Costero, R

Peimbert, M. & Costero, R. 1969, Boletin de los Observatorios Tonantzintla y Tacubaya, 5, 3

1969
[62]

2007, ApJ, 666, 636 Pérez-Díaz, B., Masegosa, J., Márquez, I., & Pérez-Montero, E

Peimbert, M., Luridiana, V ., & Peimbert, A. 2007, ApJ, 666, 636 Pérez-Díaz, B., Masegosa, J., Márquez, I., & Pérez-Montero, E. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 4289 Pérez-Díaz, B., Pérez-Montero, E., Fernández-Ontiveros, J. A., & Vílchez, J. M. 2022, A&A, 666, A115 Pérez-Díaz, B., Pérez-Mon...

2007
[63]

Peterson, B. M. 2006, in Physics of Active Galactic Nuclei at all Scales, ed. D. Alloin, V ol. 693, 77

2006
[64]

M., Denney, K

Peterson, B. M., Denney, K. D., De Rosa, G., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 109

2013
[65]

S., Vílchez, J

Pilyugin, L. S., Vílchez, J. M., & Contini, T. 2004, A&A, 425, 849 Povi´c, M., Márquez, I., Netzer, H., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2878

2004
[66]

& Buzzoni, A

Renzini, A. & Buzzoni, A. 1986, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 122, Spectral Evolution of Galaxies, ed. C. Chiosi & A. Renzini, 195–231

1986
[67]

Rupke, D. S. N., Kewley, L. J., & Barnes, J. E. 2010, ApJ, 710, L156

2010
[68]

Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161 Sánchez Almeida, J., Elmegreen, B. G., Muñoz-Tuñón, C., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, L15 Sánchez-Menguiano, L., Sánchez Almeida, J., Sánchez, S. F., & Muñoz-Tuñón, C. 2024, A&A, 681, A121

1955
[69]

1971, ApJ, 168, 327

Searle, L. 1971, ApJ, 168, 327

1971
[70]

& Sargent, W

Searle, L. & Sargent, W. L. W. 1972, ApJ, 173, 25

1972
[71]

R., et al

Sharda, P., Ginzburg, O., Krumholz, M. R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 2232

2024
[72]

2022, MNRAS, 509, 2720 Stasi´nska, G., Vale Asari, N., Cid Fernandes, R., et al

Sparre, M., Whittingham, J., Damle, M., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 2720 Stasi´nska, G., Vale Asari, N., Cid Fernandes, R., et al. 2008, MNRAS, 391, L29

2022
[73]

R., Calzetti, D., & Kinney, A

Storchi-Bergmann, T., Schmitt, H. R., Calzetti, D., & Kinney, A. L. 1998, AJ, 115, 909

1998
[74]

Sutherland, R. S. & Dopita, M. A. 2017, ApJS, 229, 34

2017
[75]

D., Dopita, M

Thomas, A. D., Dopita, M. A., Kewley, L. J., et al. 2018, ApJ, 856, 89

2018
[76]

X., Izotov, Y

Thuan, T. X., Izotov, Y . I., & Lipovetsky, V . A. 1995, ApJ, 445, 108

1995
[77]

A., Heckman, T

Tremonti, C. A., Heckman, T. M., Kauffmann, G., et al. 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

2004
[78]

& Anupama, G

Valluri, M. & Anupama, G. C. 1996, AJ, 112, 1390 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Computing in Science and Engineering, 13, 22

1996
[79]

& Osterbrock, D

Veilleux, S. & Osterbrock, D. E. 1987, ApJS, 63, 295 Article number, page 19 of 24 A&A proofs: manuscript no. aa52862-24corr

1987
[80]

Ventura, P., Stanghellini, L., Dell’Agli, F., & García-Hernández, D. A. 2017, MNRAS, 471, 4648

2017
[81]

Vila-Costas, M. B. & Edmunds, M. G. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 199

1993
[82]

M., Pagel, B

Vilchez, J. M., Pagel, B. E. J., Diaz, A. I., Terlevich, E., & Edmunds, M. G. 1988, MNRAS, 235, 633 Villar Martín, M., López Cobá, C., Cazzoli, S., Pérez Montero, E., & Cabrera

1988
[83]

2024, A&A, 690, A397

Lavers, A. 2024, A&A, 690, A397

2024
[84]

2016, MN- RAS, 458, 3466

Vincenzo, F., Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Matteucci, F., & Ventura, P. 2016, MN- RAS, 458, 3466

2016
[85]

E., et al

Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

2020
[86]

2005, ApJ, 620, 905

Yuan, F., Cui, W., & Narayan, R. 2005, ApJ, 620, 905

2005
[87]

A., Xue, Y ., & Wu, X.-B

Yuan, F., Zdziarski, A. A., Xue, Y ., & Wu, X.-B. 2007, ApJ, 659, 541

2007
[88]

A., Pilyugin, L

Zinchenko, I. A., Pilyugin, L. S., Grebel, E. K., Sánchez, S. F., & Vílchez, J. M. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2715

2016
[89]

[PLATE]-[IFUDESIGN]

Zinchenko, I. A., Vílchez, J. M., Pérez-Montero, E., et al. 2021, A&A, 655, A58 Article number, page 20 of 24 Borja Pérez-Díaz et al.: LINERs from MaNGA. I. Nuclear abundances of oxygen and nitrogen Appendix A: Comparison of estimations of chemical abundances We present in thi...

1983

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

2022, ApJS, 259, 35

Abdurro’uf, Accetta, K., Aerts, C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 259, 35

2022

[2] [2]

G., Groves, B

Allen, M. G., Groves, B. A., Dopita, M. A., Sutherland, R. S., & Kewley, L. J. 2008, ApJS, 178, 20 Amorín, R., Pérez-Montero, E., Vílchez, J. M., & Papaderos, P. 2012, ApJ, 749, 185 Amorín, R. O., Pérez-Montero, E., & Vílchez, J. M. 2010, ApJ, 715, L128

2008

[3] [3]

Andrews, B. H. & Martini, P. 2013, ApJ, 765, 140

2013

[4] [4]

2010, A&A, 519, A40

Annibali, F., Bressan, A., Rampazzo, R., et al. 2010, A&A, 519, A40

2010

[5] [5]

V ., Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., et al

Asari, N. V ., Cid Fernandes, R., Stasi´nska, G., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 263

2007

[6] [6]

J., & Scott, P

Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Article number, page 18 of 24 Borja Pérez-Díaz et al.: LINERs from MaNGA. I. Nuclear abundances of oxygen and nitrogen Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156...

2009

[7] [7]

A., Phillips, M

Baldwin, J. A., Phillips, M. M., & Terlevich, R. 1981, PASP, 93, 5

1981

[8] [8]

2015, MNRAS, 449, 867

Belfiore, F., Maiolino, R., Bundy, K., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 867

2015