Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

2D-Galactic chemical evolution: the role of the spiral density wave

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spiral arms leave a weak chemical imprint on disc galaxies, so the arm–interarm abundance contrasts observed in NGC 6754 imply the arms were born only 1–2 Gyr before the observations.

desk verdict A useful 2D chemical evolution prototype whose negative result (old spiral waves leave small abundance signatures) holds, but whose arm-age inference from NGC 6754 is undermined by post hoc time/angle matching and the absence of advection. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10571 v2 pith:A56UXNV2 submitted 2019-08-28 astro-ph.GA

Mercedes Mollá , Sheillah Wekesa , Oscar Cavichia , Á I. Díaz , Bradley K. Gibson , Fernando. F. Rosales-Ortega , Yago Ascasibar , Dismas S. Wamalwa
show 1 more author
Sebastian F. Sánchez
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GA
keywords galacticchemicalevolutionspiraldensitywavearmsazimuthalabundancevariationsstarformationrateoxygengalaxymodels
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 extends a one-dimensional chemical evolution code for Milky Way-like galaxies into a two-dimensional grid and asks whether the surface-density bump of a spiral density wave changes star formation and elemental abundances as a function of azimuth. The answer is largely negative at the present time: the wave raises oxygen abundances by only about 0.03 dex on average, below typical observational uncertainties, while the star formation rate responds more strongly, especially in an inner ring near 5 kpc. The key positive result is temporal: arm–interarm abundance contrasts are strongest during the first 1–2 Gyr after the wave is switched on. Because the observed azimuthal oxygen residuals in NGC 6754 are reproduced only at those early times, the paper concludes that if such contrasts are real, spiral arms must be young, recurrent features rather than long-lived patterns.

What carries the argument

The central object is the spiral-wave surface-density perturbation used throughout: $\Sigma_{\rm sw}(R,\theta,t) = \Sigma_{\rm so}\, e^{-(R^2/\sigma^2)[1-\cos(m\phi(t)-f_m(R))]}$, with $\Sigma_{\rm so} = (\zeta_0 m / 2\pi G)\,(R^2/\sigma^2)\,|\tan i|\,e^{-\varepsilon_s R}$ and shape function $f_m(R) = (m/\tan i)\ln(R/R_i)+\gamma$, evaluated in a frame rotating at $\Omega_p$. This perturbation is added to the halo (model SWH), to the disc (SWD), or to the disc with the wave rotating at $\Omega_p$ (SWS) and with the additional disc rotation $\Omega_p-\Omega$ (SWR), driving star formation through the gas surface density in the multiphase chemical evolution code. The mechanism that carries the argument is the competition between the over-density's boost to star formation and the rotational mixing that homogenises the interstellar medium; the net effect is that the abundance signal is strong only early, so the observable arm–interarm contrast becomes a clock for the arm's age.

What would settle it

Measure azimuthal oxygen abundances with integral-field data in a galaxy whose spiral arms have been independently dated by stellar kinematics or stellar population ages to be older than 2 Gyr; if arm–interarm contrasts of order 0.1 dex are still present, the paper's claim that such contrasts require young arms is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that in a two-dimensional multiphase chemical evolution model of a Milky Way-type disc, a spiral density wave acting as a rigidly rotating surface-density overdensity leaves only a faint chemical imprint: averaged present-day differences in 12+log(O/H) between models with and without the wave are about 0.006 dex, with local residuals up to about 0.1 dex only in the outermost disc, and the azimuthal pattern is erased within a few gigayears by the wave's rotation. The imprint is strongest early: already near t ≈ 1–2 Gyr the arm–interarm oxygen contrast reaches the 0.1 dex level seen in integral-field observations of NGC 6754, after which it decays below detectability. The authors conclude that the existence of measurable arm–interarm abundance differences implies the spiral arm must have formed only 1–2 Gyr before the observations, so spiral density waves in discs are probably recurrent, regenerating on roughly that timescale.

Load-bearing premise

The model fixes the spiral wave as a rigidly rotating, prescribed surface-density overdensity that is added to the gas with no flow of material between the 1 kpc cells, so if real spiral arms drive radial gas flows, the dilution of abundance contrasts and the inferred arm age of 1–2 Gyr could be substantially different.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Present-day oxygen abundance maps of a Milky Way-like galaxy should show no more than about 0.03 dex average arm–interarm contrast, so detections of larger contrasts are best interpreted as evidence of a young spiral wave rather than a permanent structure.
  • The star formation rate responds more strongly than abundance: the rotating-wave models predict a roughly 0.2 dex SFR enhancement in a ring near R ≈ 5 kpc, which should be visible in Hα maps even when abundance differences are not.
  • At the co-rotation radius (about 8 kpc in the SWR model) the wave's time dependence vanishes, making that ring a natural null test for spiral-wave chemical effects.
  • The observed NGC 6754 azimuthal oxygen pattern is matched only at t ≤ 2 Gyr, supporting the interpretation that the spiral wave in that galaxy is young; extending this comparison to more integral-field galaxies offers a way to measure arm ages statistically.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If future integral-field surveys find arm–interarm abundance contrasts in galaxies whose arms are demonstrably older than 2 Gyr, the model's assumption that mixing is purely due to rigid wave rotation would need to be relaxed, for example by adding radial gas flows, which would likely change the dilution timescale.
  • The same framework could be applied to element ratios such as Fe/O that respond on different timescales than O/H; because supernova iron enrichment lags oxygen production, Fe/O might retain an arm–interarm signal longer than O/H and provide a separate clock for arm age.
  • A testable extension: compare the predicted Hα map of the rotating-wave model with integral-field emission-line maps of nearby grand-design spirals; if the 5 kpc SFR ring is absent, the pattern speed or the way the wave feeds star formation would need revision.
  • The paper's predicted sign flip in log(N/O) across the arm in the outer disc is a specific signature that targeted observations of outer-disc H II regions could verify; if absent, the fixed-wave prescription is likely at fault.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the MulChem one-dimensional chemical evolution code to a two-dimensional Cartesian grid and studies how a prescribed spiral density-wave perturbation affects star formation and elemental abundances in a Milky Way-type galaxy. Five models are computed: an azimuthally symmetric reference model (AZ) and four spiral-wave models (SWH, SWD, SWS, SWR), which differ in whether the wave is added to the halo or disc, whether it rotates, and whether disc rotation is included. The main results are that the spiral wave leaves only small (≲0.03 dex) present-day signatures in oxygen abundance, that differences with respect to the AZ model are stronger at early times, and that rotating-wave models erase azimuthal contrasts within a few Gyr. The paper then compares model oxygen residuals with VLT/MUSE observations of NGC 6754 from Sánchez-Menguiano et al. (2016), finding that early-time (t ≈ 2 Gyr) model results for the non-rotating models SWH and SWD resemble the observed arm-interarm pattern, and concludes that observed arm-interarm abundance differences imply spiral arms are young, about 1–2 Gyr old.

Significance. The construction of a 2D chemical evolution framework with an explicit spiral-wave perturbation is a useful step toward interpreting integral-field observations, and the systematic comparison of five model variants is clearly laid out. The paper's strongest asset is its demonstration, within the adopted framework, that azimuthal abundance contrasts are diluted on Gyr timescales, and the explicit statement that such contrasts, if observed, would constrain the arm's recent history. The comparison with the contemporaneous work of Spitoni et al. (2019) is also valuable. However, the central observational inference about arm age is weakened by post hoc time and angle selection and by the absence of gas advection; these issues make the claimed 1–2 Gyr arm age a conditional statement rather than a robust diagnostic.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Figure 12, and Conclusions (v)] The central claim that observed arm-interarm abundance differences imply a spiral arm lifetime of 1–2 Gyr rests on a comparison in which the model time is chosen as t = 2 Gyr after inspecting the data and the azimuthal angle is shifted by an arbitrary constant in each panel. The manuscript states 'we have moved the angle of observations by a given constant quantity in each panel', but no criterion is given for selecting t = 2 Gyr, and no measure of agreement is reported. As presented, this is a demonstration that some early-time model snapshot can resemble the data, not a test of the age hypothesis. The authors should either define a quantitative goodness-of-fit and scan over model time and angle, or explicitly reframe the comparison as illustrative rather than inferential.
  2. [Section 2.6, Eqs. (20)–(21)] The model contains no advection: the spiral perturbation is added as a local source term to dgD/dt in each 1 kpc cell, so gas and metals never move between cells. The dilution of the arm-interarm abundance contrast with time is therefore the time-averaging of a rotating pattern over isolated cells, not dynamical mixing. The paper acknowledges radial flows as future work in the introduction's phase (iii), but the age inference in Conclusions (v) depends directly on the dilution rate. The authors should state explicitly that the 1–2 Gyr estimate is conditional on negligible radial gas flows and shear, and ideally test the sensitivity of the dilution time to a simple mixing prescription.
  3. [Section 2.5, Table 2, and Figure 12] The spiral amplitude ζ0 is fixed once from Junqueira et al. (2013) and is never varied, while the model's present-day oxygen residuals in the inner disc are only ~0.03 dex compared with the observed NGC 6754 residuals of ~0.1 dex. A spiral wave with a factor of two or three larger density contrast could plausibly maintain the observed contrast for a substantially older arm, so the inferred 1–2 Gyr arm age is degenerate with the assumed wave strength. A sensitivity test varying ζ0 (or the resulting arm-interarm gas density contrast) is needed before the age claim can be considered robust.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.6, last paragraph] The sentence 'in the last two models including rotation (SWS and SWD)' should refer to '(SWS and SWR)', since SWD is defined earlier as a non-rotating model.
  2. [Section 3.2, Figure 12 caption] The caption says the observed angles are moved by 'a given constant quantity in each panel' but does not list the values; please state the shifts and whether the shift was applied to the data or to the model.
  3. [Section 3.2, text near Figure 12] The phrase 't is still impossible to reproduce these data' appears to be a typo; it should read 'it is still impossible'.
  4. [Section 4, Conclusions (v)] The phrase 'if abundance differences arm–interarm there exist' is ungrammatical; consider 'if arm–interarm abundance differences exist'.
  5. [Eq. (22)] The summation in Eq. (22) is written as ∑i=NTi, which is missing a lower limit; it should be ∑i=1NT.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Post hoc time and angle matching makes the 1–2 Gyr arm-age inference a fitted conclusion rather than an out-of-sample prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Figure 12; abstract; conclusion item (v)]
    "For this reason, we have moved the angle of observations by a given constant quantity in each panel. Nevertheless, t is still impossible to reproduce these data with our model abundances for the present time. Therefore, ... we have used the abundances at an alternative time, t = 2.00 Gyr ... Our results are then in better agreement with the shape of the observations found in NGC 6754. The predicted azimuthal oxygen abundance patterns for t ≤ 2 Gyr are in reasonable agreement with recent observations obtained with VLT/MUSE for NGC 6754."

    The abstract labels the t≤2 Gyr maps as 'predicted' agreement, but the text shows that both the epoch t=2.00 Gyr and a constant angular shift were chosen after inspecting the NGC 6754 residuals, precisely because the present-time model could not reproduce them. Conclusion item (v) then converts this selected epoch into the paper's central physical inference: observed arm–interarm abundance differences imply the spiral arm formed only 1–2 Gyr before observation. The 1–2 Gyr number is therefore the adjusted input epoch reframed as an output age, rather than an independent prediction. The underlying dilution trend is a genuine model outcome, but the specific age claim reduces to an in-sample fit.

full rationale

The paper is not circular in a self-definitional sense: the spiral-wave surface-density formula is taken from the external JUN13 prescription, and the MULCHEM calibration in Mollá et al. (2015, 2017, 2019) is a normal self-citation chain backed by Milky Way observations, not a uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in verbatim. The model's dilution of arm–interarm contrast with time is a nontrivial integration result, and the no-advection limitation is a physical caveat rather than a circularity. However, the central claim—that observed azimuthal abundance residuals require a 1–2 Gyr old spiral arm—depends on choosing t=2 Gyr and an arbitrary angular offset after inspecting the NGC 6754 data. Because that fitted time is then presented as the predicted arm age, the headline inference is partly circular and is not an out-of-sample test. The score of 6 reflects partial but substantive circularity: the central result reduces to a post hoc match, while the underlying model evolution retains independent content.

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

The central claims rest chiefly on the spiral wave parameters from JUN13, the star formation prescriptions from prior work, the independent-cell approximation, and the post hoc choice of t=2 Gyr and angle shifts in the NGC 6754 comparison. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • spiral perturbation amplitude zeta0 = 600 km^2 s^-2 kpc^-1
    Taken from JUN13; sets the 15-20% density contrast of the arms, directly controlling the magnitude of arm-interarm differences.
  • spiral pattern speed Omega_p = 23 km/s/kpc
    Taken from JUN13; sets the corotation radius and the rotation-induced mixing rate in models SWS and SWR.
  • pitch angle and arm width = 14 degrees, 4.7 kpc
    Taken from JUN13; control the geometry and contrast of the added over-density.
  • comparison time for NGC 6754 = 2 Gyr
    Selected post hoc because present-time residuals are too small; drives the claimed agreement in Figure 12.
  • azimuthal angle shift per panel = different constants in each panel
    Applied to the observed data to align the model arms; no physical justification is given.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The spiral density wave surface density from JUN13 (Eq. 16) represents the disc response to the spiral perturbation, with zero-thickness and tightly-wound approximations.
    Section 2.5; the model adds this over-density directly to the gas or disc mass without a self-consistent potential.
  • domain assumption Star formation follows the multiphase Schmidt-type prescriptions of Ferrini et al. with efficiencies calibrated to the Milky Way in the authors' earlier papers.
    Section 2.2; the kappa parameters from MOL17 and Ferrini et al. are assumed valid locally in each 1 kpc cell.
  • domain assumption Each 1 kpc^2 cell evolves independently, with no radial gas flows or exchange of material between cells; the only mixing is the time-varying over-density in rotating models.
    Sections 2.3 and 2.6; the future-work section (iii) acknowledges this simplification, citing Cavichia et al. 2014 for radial flows.
  • standard math Galactic disc mass distributions and collapse timescales are taken from Salucci et al. rotation curves for a Mdyn = 1e12 Msun halo.
    Section 2.1 and Table 1; this is a standard approach in the authors' 1D models.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial condition is a gas-only protohalo with the spiral over-density already present at t=0 (or growing with halo depletion), rather than a dynamically formed spiral pattern.
    Section 2.6; the authors note this is a prototype and that realistic arm formation is future work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2D-Galactic chemical evolution: the role of the spiral density wave." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A56UXNV2

@misc{pith2026190810571,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2D-Galactic chemical evolution: the role of the spiral density wave},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A56UXNV2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10571}
}
abstract

We present a 2-dimensional chemical evolution code applied to a Milky Way type galaxy, incorporating the role of spiral arms in shaping azimuthal abundance variations, and confront the predicted behaviour with recent observations taken with integral field units. To the usual radial distribution of mass, we add the surface density of the spiral wave and study its effect on star formation and elemental abundances. We compute five different models: one with azimuthal symmetry which depends only on radius, while the other four are subjected to the effect of a spiral density wave. At early times, the imprint of the spiral density wave is carried by both the stellar and star formation surface densities; conversely, the elemental abundance pattern is less affected. At later epochs, however, differences among the models are diluted, becoming almost indistinguishable given current observational uncertainties. At the present time, the largest differences appear in the star formation rate and/or in the outer disc (R$\ge$ 18\,kpc). The predicted azimuthal oxygen abundance patterns for $t \le 2$\,Gyr are in reasonable agreement with recent observations obtained with VLT/MUSE for NGC 6754

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10571 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Coordinate representations: a) Radial MulChem (1D) scheme, depending only on the galactocentric distance R. b) Cartesian grid used in 2D￾Mulchem, where each region is centred on a point (x, y). [h] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pitch angle i description [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Surface density for the spiral wave corresponding to equations from Section 2.5 computed with parameters from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for AZ in the present time, column 1, and differences of our four models, SWH, SWD, SWS and SWR, in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively, for the stellar surface density, first row, (in units of M pc−2 ), in logarithmic scale; the SFR surface density, (in units …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The radial distribution for the present time of: a) stellar surface density; b) star formation rate surface density; c) elemental oxygen abundance 12 + log (O/H); and d) for the relative abundance log(N/O), for all models as labelled, with the observational data in top…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evolution with time of the SFR surface density as log ΣSFR in M pc−2 Gyr−1 for three different regions located at galactocentric dis￾tances: a) R = 5 kpc; b) R = 8 kpc; and c) R = 13 kpc. Each model is shown as a different colour and line as labelled in panel b). time.…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution along time of the mean residuals obtained for each model for: a) logarithm of stellar densities, log Σ∗; b) logarithm of the star formation rate, log SFR; c) Oxygen abundances, 12 + log (O/H); and d) the relative abundance nitrogen-over-oxygen, log (N/O). Eac…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time evolution of the stellar surface density Σ∗(x, y) in logarithmic scale at: 1)) t = 0.1 Gyr; 2) t = 0.25 Gyr; 3) t = 1.20 Gyr; 4) t = 4.40 Gyr; and bottom) t = 8.60 Gyr. Left panels correspond to the AZ model, with the scale at the left side; while the four right c…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Time evolution of the SFR surface density ΣSFR(x, y) in logarithmic scale at: top) t = 0.10 Gyr; second row) t = 0.25 Gyr; third row) t = 1.20 Gyr; fourth row) t = 4.40 Gyr; and bottom) t = 8.60 Gyr. Left panels correspond to the AZ model, with scale at the left side; …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Time evolution of the oxygen abundance 12 + log (O/H)(x, y) at: top) t = 0.1 Gyr; second row) t = 0.25 Gyr; third row) t = 1.20 Gyr; fourth row) t = 4.40 Gyr; and bottom) t = 8.60 Gyr. Left panels correspond to the AZ model, with scale at the left side; while the righ…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Time evolution of the nitrogen-to-oxygen ratio log (N/O)(x, y) at: top) t = 0.1 Gyr; second row) t = 0.25 Gyr; third row) t = 1.20 Gyr; fourth row) t = 4.40 Gyr; and bottom) t = 8.60 Gyr. Left panels correspond to the AZ model, with scale at the left; while the right …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Differences in oxygen abundances 12 + log(O/H) between AZ and SWH,SWD, SWS and SWR models –in cyan, green, red and blue lines, respectively– as a function of the angle θ for three different galactocentric radii as labelled, compared with the data from SM16 for oxygen …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., et al., 2013, A&A, 557, A107

    Acharova I. A., et al., 2013, A&A, 557, A107

    2013

  2. [2]

    Aguerri J. A. L., et al., 2015, A&A, 576, A102

    2015

  3. [3]

    B., L \'e pine J

    Am \^o res E. B., L \'e pine J. R. D., Mishurov Y. N., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1768

    2009

  4. [4]

    Antoja T., Figueras F., Romero-G \'o mez M., Pichardo B., Valenzuela O., Moreno E., 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1423

    2011

  5. [5]

    Baba J., 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2954

    2015

  6. [6]

    Boissier S., Prantzos N., 1999, MNRAS, 307, 857

    1999

  7. [7]

    C., Ryan-Weber E., 2012, ApJ, 750, 122

    Bresolin F., Kennicutt R. C., Ryan-Weber E., 2012, ApJ, 750, 122

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Bundy K., et al., 2015, ApJ, 798, 7

    work page 2015

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Catal \'a n-Torrecilla C., et al., 2015, A&A, 584, A8

    2015

  2. [10]

    Cavichia O., Moll \'a M., 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.02022

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Cavichia O., Moll \'a M., Costa R. D. D., Maciel W. J., 2014, MNRAS, 437, 3688

    2014

  4. [12]

    Cedr \'e s B., Cepa J., 2002, A&A, 391, 809

    2002

  5. [13]

    Cedr \'e s B., Cepa J., Bongiovanni \'A ., Casta \ n eda H., S \'a nchez-Portal M., Tomita A., 2012, A&A, 545, A43

    2012

  6. [14]

    Chieffi A., Limongi M., 2004, ApJ, 608, 405

    2004

  7. [15]

    Cid Fernandes R., et al., 2014, A&A, 561, A130

    2014

  8. [16]

    M., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 872

    Croom S. M., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 421, 872

    2012

  9. [17]

    I., 1989, epg..conf, 377

    Diaz A. I., 1989, epg..conf, 377

    1989

  10. [18]

    J., Heyer M., Audit E., Loinard L., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1201

    Dib S., Walcher C. J., Heyer M., Audit E., Loinard L., 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1201

    2009

  11. [19]

    L., Burkert A., Pringle J

    Dobbs C. L., Burkert A., Pringle J. E., 2011, MNRAS, 417, 1318

    2011

  12. [20]

    Ferrini F., Matteucci F., Pardi C., Penco U., 1992, ApJ, 387, 138

    1992

  13. [21]

    C., Diaz A

    Ferrini F., Molla M., Pardi M. C., Diaz A. I., 1994, ApJ, 427, 745

    1994

  14. [22]

    C., 1970, ApJ, 160, 811

    Freeman K. C., 1970, ApJ, 160, 811

    1970

  15. [23]

    R., 2002, ApJ, 581, 1019

    Garnett D. R., 2002, ApJ, 581, 1019

    2002

  16. [24]

    Gavazzi G., Zaccardo A., Sanvito G., Boselli A., Bonfanti C., 2004, A&A, 417, 499

    2004

  17. [25]

    F., Moll \'a M., 2005, A&A, 432, 861

    Gavil \'a n M., Buell J. F., Moll \'a M., 2005, A&A, 432, 861

    2005

  18. [26]

    F., 2006, A&A, 450, 509

    Gavil \'a n M., Moll \'a M., Buell J. F., 2006, A&A, 450, 509

    2006

  19. [27]

    M., et al., 2015, A&A, 581, A103

    Gonz \'a lez Delgado R. M., et al., 2015, A&A, 581, A103

    2015

  20. [28]

    M., et al., 2014, A&A, 562, A47

    Gonz \'a lez Delgado R. M., et al., 2014, A&A, 562, A47

    2014

  21. [29]

    Grand R. J. J., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 460, L94

    2016

  22. [30]

    Ho I.-T., et al., 2017, ApJ, 846, 39

    2017

  23. [31]

    Ho I.-T., et al., 2018, A&A, 618, A64

    2018

  24. [32]

    Ho I.-T., 2019, Linking Galaxies from the Epoch of Initial Star Formation to Today, Australia-ESO joint conference, Sydney, Australia, February 18-22, 2019, (http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2635391)

    2019 doi

  25. [33]

    R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    Iwamoto K., Brachwitz F., Nomoto K., Kishimoto N., Umeda H., Hix W. R., Thielemann F.-K., 1999, ApJS, 125, 439

    1999

  26. [34]

    C., L \'e pine J

    Junqueira T. C., L \'e pine J. R. D., Braga C. A. S., Barros D. A., 2013, A&A, 550, A91

    2013

  27. [35]

    Kobayashi C., Springel V., White S. D. M., 2007, MNRAS, 376, 1465

    2007

  28. [36]

    A., Andrievsky S

    Korotin S. A., Andrievsky S. M., Luck R. E., L \'e pine J. R. D., Maciel W. J., Kovtyukh V. V., 2014, MNRAS, 444, 3301

    2014

  29. [37]

    Kroupa P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231

    2001

  30. [38]

    R., 2010, A&A, 521, A63

    L \'o pez-S \'a nchez \'A . R., 2010, A&A, 521, A63

    2010

  31. [39]

    C., Jr., 2013, ApJ, 766, 17

    Li Y., Bresolin F., Kennicutt R. C., Jr., 2013, ApJ, 766, 17

    2013

  32. [40]

    Limongi M., Chieffi A., 2003, ApJ, 592, 404

    2003

  33. [41]

    J., Andrievsky S., 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.01686

    Maciel W. J., Andrievsky S., 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.01686

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Martin P., Belley J., 1996, ApJ, 468, 598

    1996

  35. [43]

    Martin P., Roy J.-R., 1994, ApJ, 424, 599

    1994

  36. [44]

    Matteucci F., Francois P., 1989, MNRAS, 239, 885

    1989

  37. [45]

    L., Rybski P

    McCall M. L., Rybski P. M., Shields G. A., 1985, ApJS, 57, 1

    1985

  38. [46]

    Minchev I., Chiappini C., Martig M., 2013, A&A, 558, A9

    2013

  39. [47]

    Moll \'a M., 2014, AdAst, 2014, 162949

    2014

  40. [48]

    I., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 521

    Moll \'a M., D \' az A. I., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 521

    2005

  41. [49]

    K.\ 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3693 (MOL15)

    Moll \'a , M., Cavichia, O., Gavil \'a n, M., & Gibson, B. K.\ 2015, MNRAS, 451, 3693 (MOL15)

    2015

  42. [50]

    I., Gibson, B

    Moll \'a , M., D\' az A. I., Gibson, B. K., et al., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1329 (MOL16)

    2016

  43. [51]

    I., Ascasibar Y., Gibson B

    Moll \'a M., D \' az \'A . I., Ascasibar Y., Gibson B. K., 2017, MNRAS, 468, 305 (MOL17)

    2017

  44. [52]

    I., Cavichia O., Gibson B

    Moll \'a M., D \' az \'A . I., Cavichia O., Gibson B. K., Maciel W. J., Costa R. D. D., Ascasibar Y., Few C. G., 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3071

    2019

  45. [53]

    C., Jr., 2006, ApJS, 164, 81

    Moustakas J., Kennicutt R. C., Jr., 2006, ApJS, 164, 81

    2006

  46. [54]

    Pagel B. E. J., Edmunds M. G., Blackwell D. E., Chun M. S., Smith G., 1979, MNRAS, 189, 95

    1979

  47. [55]

    P \'e rez E., et al., 2013, ApJ, 764, L1

    2013

  48. [56]

    Piffl, T., et al., 2014, A&A, 562, A91

    2014

  49. [57]

    Portinari L., Chiosi C., Bressan A., 1998, A&A, 334, 505

    1998

  50. [58]

    Rix H.-W., Zaritsky D., 1995, ApJ, 447, 82

    1995

  51. [59]

    Roca-F \`a brega S., Valenzuela O., Figueras F., Romero-G \'o mez M., Vel \'a zquez H., Antoja T., Pichardo B., 2013, MNRAS, 432, 2878

    2013

  52. [60]

    F., D \' az A

    Rosales-Ortega F. F., D \' az A. I., Kennicutt R. C., S \'a nchez S. F., 2011, MNRAS, 415, 2439

    2011

  53. [61]

    Ruiz-Lapuente P., Blinnikov S., Canal R., Mendez J., Sorokina E., Visco A., Walton N., 2000, MmSAI, 71, 435

    2000

  54. [62]

    Ryder, S.D., Fenner, Y., Gibson, B.K., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 1337

    2005

  55. [63]

    Salucci P., Lapi A., Tonini C., Gentile G., Yegorova I., Klein U., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 41

    2007

  56. [64]

    F., et al., 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1604.02289

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2016, arXiv, arXiv:1604.02289

    2016 arXiv

  57. [65]

    S \'a nchez S., et al., 2015, Galax, 3, 164

    2015

  58. [66]

    F., 2015, arXiv, arXiv:1501.06870

    Sanchez S. F., 2015, arXiv, arXiv:1501.06870

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    F., et al., 2015, A&A, 574, A47

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2015, A&A, 574, A47

    2015

  60. [68]

    F., et al., 2015, A&A, 573, A105

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2015, A&A, 573, A105

    2015

  61. [69]

    F., et al., 2014, A&A, 563, A49

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2014, A&A, 563, A49

    2014

  62. [70]

    F., et al., 2013, A&A, 554, A58

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2013, A&A, 554, A58

    2013

  63. [71]

    F., et al., 2012, A&A, 538, A8

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2012, A&A, 538, A8

    2012

  64. [72]

    F., et al., 2012, A&A, 546, A2

    S \'a nchez S. F., et al., 2012, A&A, 546, A2

    2012

  65. [73]

    et al., 2014, A&A, 540, A6

    S \'a nchez-Bl?zquez, P. et al., 2014, A&A, 540, A6

    2014

  66. [74]

    S \'a nchez-Menguiano L., et al., 2016, A&A, 587, A70

    2016

  67. [75]

    S \'a nchez-Menguiano L., et al., 2016, ApJ, 830, L40

    2016

  68. [76]

    S \'a nchez-Menguiano L., et al., 2017, A&A, 603, A113

    2017

  69. [77]

    S \'a nchez-Menguiano L., et al., 2018, A&A, 609, A119

    2018

  70. [78]

    D., 1989, ApJ, 347, 883

    Skillman E. D., 1989, ApJ, 347, 883

    1989

  71. [79]

    2019, A&A, 628, A38

    Spitoni E., Cescutti G., Minchev I., Matteucci F., Silva Aguirre V., et al. 2019, A&A, 628, A38

    2019

  72. [80]

    J., Jr., & Arnett, W

    Talbot, R. J., Jr., & Arnett, W. D.\ 1973, ApJ 186, 51

    1973

  73. [81]

    A., et al., 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    Tremonti C. A., et al., 2004, ApJ, 613, 898

    2004

  74. [82]

    J., Haynes M

    van Zee L., Salzer J. J., Haynes M. P., O'Donoghue A. A., Balonek T. J., 1998, AJ, 116, 2805

    1998

  75. [83]

    Vogt F. P. A., P \'e rez E., Dopita M. A., Verdes-Montenegro L., Borthakur S., 2017, A&A, 601, A61

    2017

  76. [84]

    L., van der Marel R

    Watkins L. L., van der Marel R. P., Sohn S. T., Evans N. W., 2019, ApJ, 873, 118

    2019

  77. [85]

    C., Jr., Huchra J

    Zaritsky D., Kennicutt R. C., Jr., Huchra J. P., 1994, ApJ, 420, 87

    1994

  78. [86]

    A., Pilyugin L

    Zinchenko I. A., Pilyugin L. S., Grebel E. K., S \'a nchez S. F., V \' lchez J. M., 2016, MNRAS, 462, 2715

    2016

Pith tools

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