Cited by 1,042Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies

Mass Loss: Its Effect on the Evolution and Fate of High-Mass Stars

Open access
Smith, Nathan·2014·Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics

Abstract

Our understanding of massive star evolution is in flux due to recent upheavals in our view of mass loss and observations of a high binary fraction among O-type stars. Mass-loss rates for standard metallicity-dependent winds of hot stars are lower by a factor of 2–3 compared with rates adopted in modern stellar evolution codes, due to the influence of clumping on observed diagnostics. Weaker hot star winds shift the burden of H-envelope removal to the winds, pulsations, and eruptions of evolved supergiants, as well as binary mass transfer. Studies of stripped-envelope supernovae, in particular, require binary mass transfer. Dramatic examples of eruptive mass loss are seen in Type IIn supernovae, which have massive shells ejected just a few years earlier. These eruptions are a prelude to core collapse, and may signify severe instabilities in the latest nuclear burning phases. We encounter the predicament that the most important modes of mass loss are also the most uncertain, undermining the predictive power of single-star evolution models. Moreover, the influence of winds and rotation has been evaluated by testing single-star models against observed statistics that, it turns out, are heavily influenced by binary evolution. Altogether, this may alter our view about the most basic outcomes of massive-star mass loss—are Wolf-Rayet stars and Type Ibc supernovae the products of winds, or are they mostly the result of binary evolution and eruptive mass loss? This is not fully settled, but mounting evidence points toward the latter. This paradigm shift impacts other areas of astronomy, because it changes predictions for ionizing radiation and wind feedback from stellar populations, it may alter conclusions about star-formation rates and initial mass functions, it affects the origin of compact stellar remnants, and it influences how we use supernovae as probes of stellar evolution across cosmic time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-040025

Cites

246 of 246 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LSST will constrain the rates of individual eruption subclasses by detecting them in galaxies out to tens of megaparsecs.

    “We will also constrain the rates of individual eruption subclasses ( Smith 2014 ) by detecting them in galaxies out to tens of megaparsecs.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Bennett PD. 2010. In Hot and Cool: Bridging Gaps in Massive Star Evolution , ed. C Leitherer, P Bennett, P Morris, J van Loon. ASP Conf. Ser. 425:181. San Francisco: ASP
  2. Cohen DH, 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2391
  3. Conti PS, 1976, Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Lie'ge, 9, 193
  4. de Jager C, 1988, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 72, 259
  5. de Koter A, 1996, Astron. Astrophys., 306, 501
  6. Dessart L, 2010, MNRAS, 405, 2113
  7. Feldmeier A, 1995, Astron. Astrophys., 299, 523
  8. Fullerton AW, 1997, Astron. Astrophys., 327, 699
  9. Gvaramadze VV, 2010, MNRAS, 405, 520
  10. Hamann W-R, 2008, Clumping in Hot-Star Winds
  11. Heger A, 1997, Astron. Astrophys., 327, 224
  12. Hillier DJ, 1991, Astron. Astrophys., 247, 455
  13. Langer N, 1998, Astron. Astrophys., 329, 551
  14. Mason BD, 2009, Astron. J., 110, 2715
  15. Meynet G, 1994, Astron. Astrophys. Suppl., 103, 97
  16. Najarro F, 1996, Astron. Astrophys., 306, 892
  17. Nieuwenhuijzen H, 1990, Astron. Astrophys., 231, 134
  18. Nugis T, 2000, Astron. Astrophys., 360, 227
  19. Paczynski B, 1966, Acta Astron., 16, 231
  20. Paczynski B, 1967, Acta Astron., 17, 355
  21. Podsiadlowski P, 2010, MNRAS, 406, 840
  22. Sana H, Evans CJ. 2011. In Active OB Stars: Structure, Evolution, Mass Loss, and Critical Limits, IAU Symp. 272 , ed. C Neiner, G Wade, G Meynet, G Peters, pp. 474–85. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  23. Wolf CJE, 1867, Comptes Rendus, 65, 291

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, N.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Nathan
Venue
Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Published
2014-08-18
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
487-528
ISSN
  • 0066-4146 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-4282
OpenAlex
W2151213110
Cited by
1,042
References
246
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 113 · 2024: 94 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 99 · 2019: 122 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 88 · 2016: 64 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 8
FWCI
4.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Gamma-ray bursts and supernovae
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Keywords
massive star evolution, stellar mass loss, hot star winds, Wolf-Rayet stars, Type Ib/c supernovae, stripped-envelope supernovae, Type IIn supernovae, eruptive mass loss, binary mass transfer, binary star evolution, O-type stars, stellar rotation, stellar feedback

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review