Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 66 references

Open clusters in the outer disc studied with MEGARA@GTC Auner 1 and Berkeley 102

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports the first spectroscopic study of the open clusters Auner 1 and Berkeley 102, showing both to be thin-disk objects and extending the Milky Way's flattened metallicity gradient beyond 14 kpc.

desk verdict Useful first spectroscopic data for two outer-disc clusters, but the Eu highlight is oversold and the thin-disk classification depends on a spiral-arm amplitude chosen after the fact. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10512 v1 pith:FRGVSKZ4 submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

J. Carbajo-Hijarrubia , R. Carrera , F. Anders , C. Jordi , L. Casamiquela , L. Balaguer-Núñez , A. Gil de Paz This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords openclustersouterGalacticdiscchemicalabundancesmetallicitygradientarchaeologyMEGARA/GTCthindiskkinematicsredgiants
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

Open clusters are precise tracers of the Milky Way's chemical evolution, but almost none beyond a Galactocentric radius of about 14 kpc have been measured spectroscopically, leaving the outer disc largely unconstrained. This paper aims to change that by obtaining medium-resolution MEGARA/GTC spectra of red-giant members of two previously unstudied clusters, Auner 1 and Berkeley 102, which sit at opposite azimuths about 14 kpc from the Galactic centre. It reports the first radial velocities and chemical abundances for both clusters: $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -0.30 \pm 0.09$ and $-0.35 \pm 0.06$, with ages of $3.2 \pm 0.7$ Gyr, distances near 8 kpc, and locations roughly 0.7 kpc below the plane. It argues from their orbits and abundance patterns that both belong to the thin disc, that the metallicity gradient's 'knee' may lie beyond 14 kpc rather than at 11-12 kpc, and that the most remote open clusters need not have been accreted from another galaxy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is medium-resolution spectroscopy with the MEGARA instrument in its HR-R integral-field mode at $R \sim 18{,}700$ over a 640.6-679.7 nm window, applied to a few red giant and red clump stars per cluster. Atmospheric parameters are anchored to photo-astrometric estimates, and abundances for Fe, Ca, Co, Ni, Ba, and Eu are obtained by spectral synthesis, with the measured lines selected and validated against synthetic spectra. A differential zero-point correction, derived from stars observed by both MEGARA and an independent high-resolution survey, removes a systematic $-0.21$ dex offset in $[\mathrm{Fe/H}]$ before cluster abundances are averaged. Distances, ages, and kinematics come from Gaia-based cluster memberships, parallax zero-point corrections, and stellar-evolution isochrone fits, and the thin-disc classification is carried by orbit integrations in four Galactic potentials that include an axisymmetric model, a bar, spiral arms, and their combination.

What would settle it

Recompute the orbits with the standard 40 percent spiral-arm amplitude of the adopted potential: if the resulting maximum vertical heights stay near 1-2 kpc and eccentricities stay near 0.1-0.2, the thin-disc classification survives; if they rise to several kiloparsecs and about 0.3, the classification collapses. A higher signal-to-noise spectrum of Berkeley 102 could also test whether the claimed $[\mathrm{Eu/Fe}] = 0.64$ enhancement is real rather than an artifact of a single noisy line.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Auner 1 and Berkeley 102, two open clusters at Galactocentric distances around 14 kpc in previously unexplored parts of the outer disc, are ordinary thin-disc objects with modestly sub-solar iron abundances. From spectra of three red giants in each cluster, the paper derives $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -0.30 \pm 0.09$ for Auner 1 and $[\mathrm{Fe/H}] = -0.35 \pm 0.06$ for Berkeley 102, both about $3.2 \pm 0.7$ Gyr old, at heliocentric distances of roughly 7.5 and 8.3 kpc and about 0.7 kpc below the Galactic plane. The abundance ratios follow the expected outer-disc trends, with a slightly elevated $[\mathrm{Ca/Fe}]$ in both clusters and a notably high $[\mathrm{Eu/Fe}] = 0.64 \pm 0.05$ in Berkeley 102, although the paper notes that the single-line europium measurement is only $1\sigma$-compatible with the general trend. Orbital integrations with four different Galactic potentials keep the clusters on low-eccentricity, low-vertical-excursion orbits, the signature of thin-disc membership. If these claims hold, they represent the first spectroscopic abundances and radial velocities for the two clusters, and they push the flattening of the disc's radial metallicity gradient to beyond 14 kpc while strengthening the case against a merger-accretion origin for the Galaxy's most distant open clusters.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that both clusters belong to the thin disc rests on adopting a gentler 10 percent spiral-arm amplitude in the adopted Galactic potential instead of the standard 40 percent value; if the real spiral arms are stronger, the computed vertical excursions and eccentricities grow and the same data would no longer cleanly separate thin-disc from accreted orbits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The first spectroscopic abundances and radial velocities for Auner 1 and Berkeley 102 extend the open-cluster metallicity baseline to two previously unsampled azimuths at about 14 kpc.
  • The clusters' metallicities being consistent with other clusters at the same radius supports minimal azimuthal variation and locates the knee of the radial gradient possibly beyond 14 kpc.
  • Thin-disc kinematics and normal abundance patterns for both clusters strengthen the evidence that the Milky Way's most distant open clusters formed in situ rather than being accreted from a merging galaxy.
  • The high $[\mathrm{Eu/Fe}]$ in Berkeley 102, if confirmed, adds another outer-disc cluster with strong r-process enrichment, similar to the outermost cluster Berkeley 29.
  • The successful measurement of six elements in $G \sim 16$-$17$ giants demonstrates that MEGARA/GTC in IFU mode can carry out useful Galactic archaeology in the faint outer disc.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the flat gradient extends beyond 14 kpc, chemical evolution models that produce a continuously decreasing gradient from inside-out star formation would need extra pre-enriched infall or radial migration in the outer disc; a direct test would be measuring Cepheids at the same Galactocentric radii.
  • The two clusters sit at very different azimuths yet share similar metallicities, suggesting that azimuthal metallicity scatter in the outer disc is small; observing more cluster pairs at the same radius but different azimuths would quantify whether residual scatter traces spiral arms.
  • The europium enhancement in Berkeley 102, if real, could indicate local r-process enrichment from a rare event such as a neutron-star merger early in the cluster's history; a dedicated high-resolution europium survey of outer-disc clusters could turn single-cluster anomalies into a map of r-process enrichment events.
  • The systematic $-0.21$ dex offset found between MEGARA and the independent high-resolution survey is a reminder that cross-instrument abundance comparisons need differential corrections; future outer-disc studies should anchor to a common zero-point so that apparent gradient flattening is not an artifact of combining heterogeneous data.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents the first spectroscopic study of the open clusters Auner 1 and Berkeley 102 using medium-resolution (R~18,700) MEGARA@GTC IFU spectra of red-giant members, combined with Gaia astrometry and StarHorse atmospheric parameters. The authors derive radial velocities, stellar parameters, and chemical abundances for Fe, Ca, Co, Ni, Ba, and Eu, as well as updated ages and distances (3.2±0.7 Gyr; d ~ 7.5–8.3 kpc; Z_Gal ~ -0.7 kpc). They compare the cluster abundances with the OCCASO+ sample, integrate orbits in several Galactic potentials, and conclude that both clusters belong to the thin disk. On this basis they argue against an external-accretion origin for these outer-disc clusters and suggest that the metallicity gradient knee may lie beyond 14 kpc. The paper also highlights a [Eu/Fe] enhancement in Berkeley 102.

Significance. If the abundance and age measurements are accepted, the paper adds two previously unstudied spectroscopic data points in a sparsely sampled outer-disc region (R_GC ≈ 14 kpc), which is genuinely valuable for Galactic archaeology. The abundance analysis is strengthened by a differential zero-point calibration against APOGEE/MEGASTAR, by astrometric membership from Gaia, and by comparison with the independent OCCASO+ sample. The paper also demonstrates that GTC/MEGARA in IFU mode can reach the required S/N for faint (G ~ 16–17) giants in outer-disc clusters. However, the thin-disk classification and the anti-accretion argument rest on orbit integrations in which the spiral-arm amplitude is effectively tuned after inspecting the results, and the headline Eu enhancement is not supported by the quoted single-line uncertainties. The abundance measurements would stand even if the dynamical conclusions were weakened, so the main risk lies in the interpretive overlay rather than in the core data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.5, Table A.2] The choice of a 10% Cox & Gómez spiral-arm amplitude is made after inspecting the results and is not independently justified. The text says that the standard 40% amplitude 'yields large displacements in Z for Auner 1 and Berkeley 102 and high eccentricities, around 0.3,' and that 10% 'agrees better with the literature values for the Milky Way,' but no citation is given for this Milky Way value, and Table A.2 lists orbital parameters only for the 10%-amplitude runs. Because z_max and eccentricity are the quantitative criteria behind the thin-disk classification in Sect. 3.5 and the anti-accretion conclusion in Sect. 5.4, this is a load-bearing model choice. I ask the authors to (i) tabulate the 40%-amplitude orbital parameters, (ii) provide an external justification for the 10% amplitude, or (iii) explicitly state that the thin-disk classification is conditional on the non-axisymmetric model. As written, the potential parameters are effectively tuned to produce the claimed classification.
  2. [§4.2, Table 2, Table 3] The quoted cluster value [Eu/Fe] = 0.64 ± 0.05 for Berkeley 102 is based on two stars, each measured from a single Eu line with per-star uncertainties of 1.30 and 1.79 dex (Table 3). The cluster-level uncertainty of 0.05 dex is the star-to-star scatter and does not include the single-line measurement errors. This is why the abstract's 'notably enhanced' wording is contradicted by Sect. 5.1, where the authors correctly state that the measurement is 'still 1σ-compatible with the general trend' given the large intrinsic uncertainty. The cluster [Eu/Fe] uncertainty should be recomputed by propagating the per-line uncertainties (or the mean of the per-star errors), and the abstract and Table 2 should be revised to match the resulting significance.
  3. [§4.3–4.4] The zero-point corrections applied to the abundances carry uncertainties that are not propagated into the final cluster values. For [Fe/H] the correction offset is −0.21 ± 0.05 dex, and similar offsets are quoted for [Ca/Fe], [Co/Fe], and [Ni/Fe] in Sect. 4.3. The cluster-level uncertainties in Table 2 are computed in Sect. 4.4 as the star-to-star scatter only. Since the paper's central claims are the absolute metallicities and their placement on the radial gradient (Sect. 5.2), the systematic offset uncertainty should be added in quadrature before comparing with the OCCASO+ sample; otherwise the formal agreement with the trend is overstated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.5] The sentence 'including those amusing spiral arm potential' contains a typo: 'amusing' should be 'using'.
  2. [§3.1] The age is derived from 'visual fits' of PARSEC isochrones with an estimated 0.1 dex uncertainty in log age, but no formal fitting or quantitative figure of merit is given; please describe how the quoted age uncertainty of ±0.7 Gyr was obtained.
  3. [§3.2, §3.3, §4.4] Berkeley 102_2 has a v_rad about 6 km/s lower than the other two stars and the text says its membership 'should be reviewed,' yet it is still included in the cluster mean (Sect. 3.3) and in the abundance average (Sect. 4.4). A sensitivity test excluding this star should be reported for both the radial velocity and the abundances.
  4. [Abstract, §4.2, Tables 2 and 3] The abstract and Sect. 4.2 state that abundances are derived for six elements (Fe, Ca, Co, Ni, Ba, Eu), but Tables 2 and 3 also report [Ti/Fe]; the element count and the text should be harmonized with the tables.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Spiral-arm amplitude is tuned from the standard 40% to 10% after finding that 40% gives non-thin-disk orbits; the thin-disk classification is then read off the tuned model, though the abundance results are externally calibrated and independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.5 (Orbital analysis); Table A.2; applied in Section 5.4]
    "We explore the parameters that can be fitted to the potential, one of which is the amplitude of the arm potential (Cox & Gómez 2002). This factor indicates the importance of the arm potential with respect to the axisymmetric potential. The value used in the Cox & Gómez (2002) standard model is 40 %. We find that this value yields large displacements in Z for Auner 1 and Berkeley 102 and high eccentricities, around 0.3."

    The spiral-arm amplitude is treated as a fitted parameter ("We explore the parameters that can be fitted to the potential") and the standard Cox & Gómez value of 40% is rejected because it yields "large displacements in Z for Auner 1 and Berkeley 102 and high eccentricities, around 0.3", i.e., the very orbital signatures that would disqualify the clusters from thin-disk membership. The 10% amplitude is then adopted and the resulting orbits are later used to assert that both clusters "are the orbits expected for objects in the thin disc" (Sect. 3.5) and to conclude in Sect. 5.4 that the clusters belong to the thin disk.

full rationale

The abundance and metallicity results are self-contained: the paper calibrates its zero-points differentially against APOGEE/MEGASTAR stars (Sect. 4.3) and compares with the independent OCCASO+ sample, so those measurements are not defined in terms of the conclusions. The ages and distances are derived from Gaia parallaxes and isochrone fitting with external prior photometry. The central weakness is the thin-disk classification in Sect. 5.4, which depends critically on the orbital parameters computed in Sect. 3.5. There the spiral-arm amplitude is explicitly treated as a parameter to be fitted, and the standard 40% value is discarded because it produces large z_max and eccentricities around 0.3, which the authors regard as inconsistent with thin-disk membership. The 10% amplitude is then adopted without an independent justification, and the same integration is used to support the thin-disk conclusion. This is a circular step: the model is chosen to produce the desired classification, and the classification is then quoted as evidence against accretion. However, this circularity affects only the dynamical/classification claim; the abundance, age, and distance measurements stand independently. The paper also notes large uncertainties for old-cluster orbital calculations, which further weakens the robustness of the conclusion. Overall, the central abundance claims are not circular, but the thin-disk conclusion partially reduces to a model choice, giving a score of 4 rather than a higher one.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central abundance claims depend on externally calibrated Gaia/StarHorse parameters and a small APOGEE-based zero-point sample; the orbital conclusion additionally depends on a hand-chosen spiral-arm amplitude. There are no invented entities.

free parameters (5)
  • Spiral-arm amplitude (Cox and Gomez 2002) = 10%, chosen instead of standard 40%
    Adopted after the 40% amplitude gave z_max and eccentricities the authors judged inconsistent with thin-disk membership; this choice directly affects the orbital conclusions (Sect. 3.5).
  • Abundance zero-point offsets = -0.21 [Fe/H], -0.05 [Ca/Fe], +0.19 [Co/Fe], -0.02 [Ni/Fe]
    Measured from 11 MEGASTAR/APOGEE common stars and applied to all cluster abundances; transferability to the target giants is assumed (Sect. 4.3).
  • Isochrone age fit = log age = 9.5 (3.2 Gyr)
    Determined by visual comparison of PARSEC 2.0 isochrones with the cluster CMDs; the quoted 0.1 dex uncertainty is estimated by eye (Sect. 3.1, Fig. 3).
  • Initial [M/H] for synthetic reference spectra = -0.2 dex
    Fixed for all stars from an assumed Galactocentric metallicity and used for continuum normalisation before the synthesis fit; final [M/H] is free (Sect. 2.3).
  • Microturbulence and rotation broadening in spectral synthesis = v_mic = 1.29-1.77 km/s; rotation not published
    Free parameters in iSpec fits; rotation absorbs macroturbulence and is acknowledged as non-physical (Sect. 4.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaia parallax zero-point corrections and Bayesian distance estimates are accurate for clusters at about 8 kpc.
    Used to derive distances; assumes negligible parallax correlations, a 0.005 mas zero-point uncertainty, and negligible cluster extent (Sect. 3.1).
  • domain assumption StarHorse effective temperatures and surface gravities are accurate enough for abundance analysis in the narrow HR-R window.
    Teff and logg are fixed from photo-astrometric estimates because the 640-680 nm window is too narrow for a reliable spectroscopic determination (Sect. 4.1).
  • domain assumption APOGEE-MEGASTAR abundance offsets measured on 11 common stars apply to the faint, distant cluster giants.
    The zero-point corrections of -0.21 dex in [Fe/H] and small offsets in Ca, Co, Ni are transferred to stars with different brightness, metallicity, and atmospheric parameters (Sect. 4.3, Fig. A.7).
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen bar and spiral-arm parameters, including the 10% arm amplitude, approximate the Milky Way potential for orbit integrations.
    The 10% amplitude is adopted after the standard 40% value produced high z_max and eccentricity; the resulting orbits are used to conclude thin-disk membership (Sect. 3.5, Table A.2).
  • domain assumption The Gaia membership catalogues used to select target stars are correct, including Berkeley 102_2.
    The cluster mean velocity and abundances include all three catalogue members; the paper notes Be 102_2 has a radial velocity about 6 km/s different from the other two but retains it (Sect. 3.2, Table 1).
  • standard math The adopted solar motion, solar radius, and circular velocity enter the GSR/RSR transformations.
    Equations (4) and (5) use (U,V,W)_sun = (11.1, 12.24, 7.25) km/s, R0 = 8.34 kpc, and Theta0 = 240 km/s from cited literature (Sect. 3.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Open clusters in the outer disc studied with MEGARA@GTC Auner 1 and Berkeley 102." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FRGVSKZ4

@misc{pith2026250610512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Open clusters in the outer disc studied with MEGARA@GTC Auner 1 and Berkeley 102},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FRGVSKZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10512}
}
read the original abstract

Open clusters offer crucial insights into stellar nucleosynthesis and the chemical evolution of the Galactic disc, as their ages and distances can be determined with higher accuracy compared to field stars. In this study, we investigate the outermost regions of the Milky Way disc using two previously unstudied open clusters -Auner 1 and Berkeley 102- located at Galactocentric distances of approximately 14 kpc in largely uncharted areas of the Galaxy. We obtained medium-resolution spectra (R > 18,700) using the MEGARA integral-field unit (IFU) spectrograph on the 10.4 m Gran Telescopio Canarias (GTC), targeting red giant member stars in both clusters. From these spectra, we derived radial velocities, stellar atmospheric parameters, and chemical abundances for six elements: Fe, Ca, Co, Ni, Ba, and Eu. Additionally, we provide updated estimates of the clusters' ages and distances. Both clusters are old (3.2 +- 0.7 Ga), distant (d ~ 8 kpc), and lie below the Galactic plane (Z Gal ~ -0.7 kpc), with moderate extinction (AV ~ 1.3 mag). We find that Auner 1 has a metallicity of [Fe/H] = -0.30 +- 0.09 and Berkeley 102 of [Fe/H] = -0.35 +- 0.06, consistent with other clusters at similar Galactocentric radii and indicating minimal azimuthal variation in metallicity. The [X/Fe] abundance ratios align with expected trends, although [Ca/Fe] is slightly higher in both clusters, and [Eu/Fe] is notably enhanced in Berkeley 102 ([Eu/Fe] = 0.64 +- 0.05). Our findings highlight the effectiveness of GTC/MEGARA in IFU mode for Galactic archaeology and emphasize the need for further medium-to-high resolution spectroscopic studies of remote open clusters to refine models of the outer Galactic disc's chemical evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10512 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatial distribution in the field of the IFU. We mark with squares the stars observed inside the field of view of MEGARA. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Sky positions, proper motions, parallax vs. magnitude, and colour-magnitude diagrams (CMD) of Auner 1 (top panels) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CMD of Auner 1 (right) and Berkeley 102 (left). Stars in the field are marked as grey dots, those considered members by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dependence of the orbital parameters zmax (top) and ec￾centricity (bottom) on the age, and Galactocentric radius of OCs. In the top panel, we fit the data with an exponential function. Objects observed with MEGARA are marked with circles, and those with OCCASO (Carrera…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Projection on the Galactic plane of the position and ve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Orbits of Auner 1 (left) and Berkeley 102 (right), for po [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Dependence of [X/Fe] on [Fe/H]. OCCASO+ data (Carbajo-Hijarrubia et al. 2024) are represented by triangles. Auner 1 and Berkeley 102 are marked as squares. All objects are colour-coded by age [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Dependence of [Fe/H] on the Galactocentric radius. The different sub-samples of OCCASO+ as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Dependence of [X/Fe] on Galactocentric radius. OCCASO+ data (Carbajo-Hijarrubia et al. 2024) are represented by trian￾gles. Auner 1 and Berkeley 102 are marked as squares. All the objects are colour-coded by age. The black lines are the MCMC best fits to the OCCASO+ sa…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Kriging maps of the metallicities of OCs in the Galactic plane. Left: [Fe/ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2017, A&A, 600, A70

    Anders, F., Chiappini, C., Minchev, I., et al. 2017, A&A, 600, A70

    2017

  2. [2]

    2011, MNRAS, 418, 1423 Arellano-Córdova, K

    Antoja, T., Figueras, F., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1423 Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., Esteban, C., García-Rojas, J., & Méndez-Delgado, J. E. 2020, MNRAS, 496, 1051

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481

    2009

  4. [4]

    S., Rood, R

    Balser, D. S., Rood, R. T., Bania, T. M., & Anderson, L. D. 2011, ApJ, 738, 27

    2011

  5. [5]

    2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2075

    2019

  6. [6]

    2014, A&A, 569, A111

    Blanco-Cuaresma, S., Soubiran, C., Heiter, U., & Jofré, P. 2014, A&A, 569, A111

    2014

  7. [7]

    2014, A&A, 568, A71

    Boeche, C., Siebert, A., Piffl, T., et al. 2014, A&A, 568, A71

    2014

  8. [8]

    W., Hunt, J

    Bovy, J., Leung, H. W., Hunt, J. A. S., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 4740

    2019

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    V ., Tripp, T

    Bowen, D. V ., Tripp, T. M., Jenkins, E. B., et al. 2020, ApJ, 893, 84 Bragança, G. A., Daflon, S., Lanz, T., et al. 2019, A&A, 625, A120

    2020

  2. [10]

    C., & Ryan-Weber, E

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

    2012

  3. [11]

    C., & Goddard, Q

    Bresolin, F., Ryan-Weber, E., Kennicutt, R. C., & Goddard, Q. 2009, ApJ, 695, 580

    2009

  4. [12]

    2020, A&A, 640, A1

    Cantat-Gaudin, T., Anders, F., Castro-Ginard, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A1

    2020

  5. [13]

    2024, A&A, 687, A239

    Carbajo-Hijarrubia, J., Casamiquela, L., Carrera, R., et al. 2024, A&A, 687, A239

    2024

  6. [14]

    M., & Majewski, S

    Carraro, G., Geisler, D., Villanova, S., Frinchaboy, P. M., & Majewski, S. R. 2007, A&A, 476, 217

    2007

  7. [15]

    2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol

    Carrasco, E., Gil de Paz, A., Gallego, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10702, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 1070216

    2018

  8. [16]

    2022, A&A, 658, A14

    Carrera, R., Casamiquela, L., Carbajo-Hijarrubia, J., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A14

    2022

  9. [17]

    & Pancino, E

    Carrera, R. & Pancino, E. 2011, A&A, 535, A30

    2011

  10. [18]

    2020, A&A, 635, A8

    Casamiquela, L., Tarricq, Y ., Soubiran, C., et al. 2020, A&A, 635, A8

    2020

  11. [19]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cox, D. P. & Gómez, G. C. 2002, ApJS, 142, 261

    2002

  13. [21]

    2009, ApJ, 696, 797

    Cristallo, S., Straniero, O., Gallino, R., et al. 2009, ApJ, 696, 797

    2009

  14. [22]

    M., Skrutskie, M

    Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al. 2003, VizieR Online Data Cata- log: 2MASS All-Sky Catalog of Point Sources (Cutri+2003), VizieR On-line Data Catalog: II/246. Originally published in: University of Massachusetts and Infrared Processing and Analysis Center, (...

    2003

  15. [23]

    M., Wright, E

    Cutri, R. M., Wright, E. L., Conrow, T., et al. 2013, Explanatory Supplement to the AllWISE Data Release Products, Explanatory Supplement to the All- WISE Data Release Products, by R. M. Cutri et al. da Silva, R., Crestani, J., Bono, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A104 da Silva, R...

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    & Cunha, K

    Daflon, S. & Cunha, K. 2004, ApJ, 617, 1115

    2004

  17. [25]

    2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Conley, A., Meierjurgen Farr, W., et al. 2013, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1303.002

    2013

  18. [26]

    Freiburghaus, C., Rosswog, S., & Thielemann, F. K. 1999, ApJ, 525, L121

    1999

  19. [27]

    Friel, E. D. 2013, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. V olume 5: Galactic Struc- ture and Stellar Populations, ed. T. D. Oswalt & G. Gilmore, V ol. 5, 347 Gaia Collaboration, Antoja, T., McMillan, P. J., et al. 2021a, A&A, 649, A8 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Valle...

    2013

  20. [28]

    1998, ApJ, 497, 388

    Gallino, R., Arlandini, C., Busso, M., et al. 1998, ApJ, 497, 388

    1998

  21. [29]

    I., & Käppeler, F

    Gallino, R., Bisterzo, S., Straniero, O., Ivans, I. I., & Käppeler, F. 2006, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 77, 786

    2006

  22. [30]

    2014, A&A, 566, A37 Gil de Paz, A., Carrasco, E., Gallego, J., et al

    Genovali, K., Lemasle, B., Bono, G., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A37 Gil de Paz, A., Carrasco, E., Gallego, J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 10702, Ground- based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed...

    2014

  23. [31]

    Grevesse, N., Asplund, M., & Sauval, A. J. 2007, Space Sci. Rev., 130, 105

    2007

  24. [32]

    Hanuschik, R. W. 2003, A&A, 407, 1157

    2003

  25. [33]

    2021, A&A, 645, A106

    Heiter, U., Lind, K., Bergemann, M., et al. 2021, A&A, 645, A106

    2021

  26. [34]

    Hunt, E. L. & Reffert, S. 2024, A&A, 686, A42

    2024

  27. [35]

    & Mayor, M

    Jasniewicz, G. & Mayor, M. 1988, A&A, 203, 329

    1988

  28. [36]

    B., et al

    Kajino, T., Aoki, W., Balantekin, A. B., et al. 2019, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 107, 109

    2019

  29. [37]

    Karakas, A. I. & Lattanzio, J. C. 2014, PASA, 31, e030

    2014

  30. [38]

    I., & Lugaro, M

    Kobayashi, C., Karakas, A. I., & Lugaro, M. 2020, ApJ, 900, 179 Lépine, J. R. D., Cruz, P., Scarano, S., J., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 417, 698

    2020

  31. [39]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5639

    Lian, J., Zasowski, G., Hasselquist, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5639

    2022

  32. [40]

    2021, A&A, 649, A4

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

    2021

  33. [41]

    Luck, R. E. 2018, AJ, 156, 171

    2018

  34. [42]

    J., Quireza, C., & Costa, R

    Maciel, W. J., Quireza, C., & Costa, R. D. D. 2007, A&A, 463, L13

    2007

  35. [43]

    2009, A&A, 494, 95

    Magrini, L., Sestito, P., Randich, S., & Galli, D. 2009, A&A, 494, 95

    2009

  36. [44]

    V ., Casali, G., et al

    Magrini, L., Vázquez, C. V ., Casali, G., et al. 2022, Universe, 8, 64 Méndez-Delgado, J. E., Amayo, A., Arellano-Córdova, K. Z., et al. 2022, MN- RAS, 510, 4436

    2022

  37. [45]

    H., Sbordone, L., Rojas-Arriagada, A., et al

    Minniti, J. H., Sbordone, L., Rojas-Arriagada, A., et al. 2020, A&A, 640, A92 Mollá, M., García-Vargas, M. L., Millán-Irigoyen, I., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 519, 5472

    2020

  38. [46]

    2022, AJ, 164, 85

    Myers, N., Donor, J., Spoo, T., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 85

    2022

  39. [47]

    F., Frenk, C

    Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493

    1997

  40. [48]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126

    2022

  41. [49]

    2006, ApJ, 642, 410

    Nishimura, S., Kotake, K., Hashimoto, M.-a., et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, 410

    2006

  42. [50]

    A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M

    Onken, C. A., Wolf, C., Bessell, M. S., et al. 2019, PASA, 36, e033

    2019

  43. [51]

    2022, guaix- ucm/megaradrp: Release v0.12.1, Zenodo

    Pascual, S., Cardiel, N., Pica4x6, Gil De Paz, A., & Acasmor. 2022, guaix- ucm/megaradrp: Release v0.12.1, Zenodo

    2022

  44. [52]

    I., Pera, M

    Perren, G. I., Pera, M. S., Navone, H. D., & Vázquez, R. A. 2022, A&A, 663, A131

    2022

  45. [53]

    A., et al

    Poggio, E., Recio-Blanco, A., Palicio, P. A., et al. 2022, A&A, 666, L4

    2022

  46. [54]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    Prantzos, N., Abia, C., Limongi, M., Chieffi, A., & Cristallo, S. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3432

    2018

  47. [55]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 885, 131

    2019

  48. [56]

    J., Menten, K

    Reid, M. J., Menten, K. M., Brunthaler, A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 783, 130 Article number, page 12 of 22 J. Carbajo-Hijarrubia et al.: Open clusters in the outer disc studied with MEGARA@GTC

    2014

  49. [57]

    2007, Springer, 12, 495 Romero-Gómez, M., Athanassoula, E., Antoja, T., & Figueras, F

    Roesslein, M., Wolf, M., Wampfler, B., & Wegscheider, W. 2007, Springer, 12, 495 Romero-Gómez, M., Athanassoula, E., Antoja, T., & Figueras, F. 2011, MNRAS, 418, 1176 Romero-Gómez, M., Figueras, F., Antoja, T., Abedi, H., & Aguilar, L. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 218 Roškar, R., Debatti...

    2007

  50. [58]

    2008, A&A, 488, 943

    Sestito, P., Bragaglia, A., Randich, S., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 943

    2008

  51. [59]

    2018, A&A, 619, A155

    Soubiran, C., Cantat-Gaudin, T., Romero-Gómez, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 619, A155

    2018

  52. [60]

    S., De Silva, G

    Spina, L., Ting, Y . S., De Silva, G. M., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 3279

    2021

  53. [61]

    & Haywood, M

    Stanghellini, L. & Haywood, M. 2018, ApJ, 862, 45

    2018

  54. [62]

    C., Ruffert, M., Janka, H

    Surman, R., McLaughlin, G. C., Ruffert, M., Janka, H. T., & Hix, W. R. 2008, ApJ, 679, L117

    2008

  55. [63]

    O., Frandsen, S., Bruntt, H., et al

    Thygesen, A. O., Frandsen, S., Bruntt, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A160

    2012

  56. [64]

    J., Selsing, J., et al

    Watson, D., Hansen, C. J., Selsing, J., et al. 2019, Nature, 574, 497

    2019

  57. [65]

    E., Wilson, J

    Woosley, S. E., Wilson, J. R., Mathews, G. J., Hoffman, R. D., & Meyer, B. S. 1994, ApJ, 433, 229

    1994

  58. [66]

    W., & Friel, E

    Yong, D., Carney, B. W., & Friel, E. D. 2012, AJ, 144, 95 Article number, page 13 of 22 A&A proofs:manuscript no. MEGARA Appendix A: Complementary tables and figures This appendix contains three complementary tables: Table A.1 shows the linelist used in our analysis of the MEG...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.