Abstract
The complex drivers of equatorial plasma bubbles and resulting scintillation requires a system science approach spanning the Magnetosphere-Ionosphere-Thermosphere-Mesosphere disciplines. The current roadmap missions strongly support this approach, but gaps are identified in planned observations, with potential mission and solutions proposed.
Introduction
Equatorial Plasma Bubbles (EPBs) are known by many names, including ionospheric plumes and Equatorial Spread F (ESF) (Kelley et al., 2011). The varying nomenclature is associated with the different observational techniques used to study them, since the 4-dimensional morphology of the bubble structures is never fully revealed by any single measurement approach. Different techniques yield different insights into the structures, because each views only a small part of the phenomenon. For example, when observed with airglow imaging from high altitudes the depleted plasma structures are C-shaped wedges (Kil et al., 2009), but airglow images of the depletions in the plane perpendicular to the geomagnetic field show multiple tilted branches extending from a plume-like base (Makela and Otsuka, 2011). These structures can extend hundreds of km in longitude and thousands of km in latitude. At low altitudes, the bubbles are initiated at the bottom side of the ionosphere by mesoscale undulations with horizontal wavelengths of several hundred kilometers. The appearance of these waves near 300 km altitude is a precursor to the formation of bubbles (Hysell, 2000).
Bubble structure observation is further complicated due to the range of scale-sizes of density variations associated with EPBs, such as scintillation structures (e.g., (Magdaleno et al., 2017)). Scintillation has often been used to determine the presence or boundaries of EPBs (Cervera and Thomas, 2006), but the relationship between scintillation intensity and EPBs is not understood. Scintillation observations offer unique challenges. While in-situ observations provide very detailed and accurate information of small-scale structures, observations utilizing remote sensing are highly dependent of the orientation of the signal path to the scintillation region, thus limiting their ability to fully ascertain the scintillated structure size and intensity. Further, intense scintillation can result in loss-of-lock of signals, limiting observations of strong scintillation regions.
The problem of plasma bubble prediction has been outstanding for over 80 years (
Booker and Wells, 1938) for several reasons:
• Global daily measurements of the existence/non-existence of bubbles is lacking.
• Global daily measurements of the variability of the drivers of bubbles is lacking.
Drivers of plasma bubbles
In this framework, we will separate the drivers in terms of both mesoscale (100 s of km) and large-scale (1,000 s of km) features. In general, plasma bubbles form when mesoscale waves (such as Gravity Waves) create a perturbation in the bottomside ionosphere when the ionosphere is sufficiently unstable. The definition of “sufficiently” here depends largely on the amplitude of this seed wave (Retterer and Roddy, 2014). A mesoscale seed with a sufficiently large amplitude could amplify the instability of the ionosphere in a region. The mesoscale waves as a seeding mechanism is strongly supported by observations of bubbles with a periodic spacing (e.g., Aa et al., 2020) The variability of Gravity Waves and their contributions to ionospheric structure is reviewed in Zawdie et al. (2022).
If the Rayleigh-Taylor Instability growth rate is large and positive, the perturbation will grow into a large plume of depleted plasma that grows into the topside region (Ossakow, 1981; Sultan, 1996). Likewise, if the growth rate is large and negative, bubbles can be suppressed. The growth rate is dependent on field-line integrated quantities, meaning that growth is not solely dependent on the local ionospheric conditions. Multiple paths and sources of energy conspire together to enhance or suppress the growth of plasma bubbles.
Neutral wind dynamo
The global scale neutral wind dynamo plays a large role in setting up the condit`ions necessary for the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. Electric fields generated by dynamo action of the thermospheric neutral winds in the E region causes a vertical E × B drift of the F region plasma at the magnetic equator. To first order, this drift is upward during the day and “reverses” downward at night. In the late afternoon, when the E region density decreases, the F region dynamo becomes more significant. The F region dynamo, in conjunction with the conductivity gradient across the terminator, causes a “pre-reversal” enhancement (PRE) of the eastward electric field and hence the upward vertical plasma drift. In the evening, in the absence of sunlight, the E region ionosphere rapidly decays and a steep density gradient develops on the bottomside of the raised F region, which is the condition under which the Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) instability forms (Abdu, 2019).
Solar radiation
EUV radiation from the Sun drives direct ionization of the ionosphere, as well as heating the thermosphere in which the ions form (Schunk and Nagy, 2009). This is an integrated effect, meaning that the energy deposited over the course of a day for a given location determines the ion distribution and loss at night. The changes in the ionospheric profile can affect the formation of bubbles over long terms (Huang, 2002).
Tides and planetary waves
Global-scale waves in the neutral atmosphere known as tides have a strong effect on the longitudinal distribution of ions (Heelis and Maute, 2020). Waves with multi-day periodicities are a strong candidate for the day-to-day variability of bubble formation, as these could enhance the likelihood one night and suppress it the following night (Liu et al., 2013, 2021).
Geomagnetic storms
Rapid changes in the high-latitude regions can drive the global ion and neutral distribution through Travelling Atmospheric Disturbances and Penetrating Electric Fields (Kelley et al., 1979; Abdu, 2012). Simulations have shown that the same storm can enhance the likelihood of bubbles in one longitudinal sector and suppress them elsewhere (Carter et al., 2016). Additionally, changes in geomagnetic activity earlier in the day can affect the growth of bubbles in the evening (Carter et al., 2014a).
Metal ions
The presence of heavy metallic ions from smoke and meteoric debris in the E-region has been shown to suppress the likelihood of bubbles (Huba et al., 2020).
Natural hazards
Volcanic activity and other impulsive events can have a strong effect on space weather. The 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption showed a strong effect on thermospheric winds and currents (Harding et al., 2022; Le et al., 2022), and left behind an ionospheric hole near the eruption and a trail of plasma bubbles after the shock wave passed (Aa et al., 2022).
All of these effects work together to alter the structure of the ionosphere and thermosphere, which in turn determines whether an atmospheric seed will grow and form into a bubble. Untangling the effects of these competing drivers is the key challenge for Space Weather prediction.
Additionally, bubbles take time to grow, can last for a long time, and drift in east-west direction (including co-rotation with the Earth). While understanding the conditions for bubble growth is critical, it may be equally important to understand the decay of bubbles and its dependence on geospace conditions.
Challenges
Due to the scale size of the bubbles themselves, the smaller scale size of density structures associated with bubbles (i.e., scintillation), the dynamics across altitudes, and temporal range of the drivers, single point measurements are unlikely to capture some events, and miss important dynamics, spatial structures, and the evolution of plasma bubbles. Multiple missions and ground-based observatories are often used to better capture the influence of the various contributions to bubble formation. This lack of adequate data coverage has limited the field’s ability to make substantial progress in determine the drivers and their relative contributions to bubble formation and evolution. While single satellite studies provide important insights, they inherently miss many events. In addition, capturing low-altitude measurements where bubbles are first formed increases satellite drag, which limits the lifetime of the spacecraft. In fact, by capturing these limited glimpses of plasma bubbles, misinterpretations of their characteristics, and thus their relationship to the different drivers are expected.
In order to accurately validate models and understand the drivers of plasma bubbles, constellation missions are necessary. Opportunistic studies and events which can make use of ad hoc constellations can help us push forward on this compelling and long unanswered science question. In addition to thinking about a constellation flying at a single altitude, satellites and/or remote sensing instruments that can probe other altitudes is necessary. As plasma bubble dynamics change significantly with altitude, it is important that we ensure missions can capture the 3-D spatial and temporal structure of these dynamics across a wide variety of scale sizes.
The orbital geometry of a single spacecraft limits in situ observations of bubbles from space. Single point measurements increase the likelihood of missing events, and orbital precession changes where events can be observed. This has led many space-based studies to focus on climatology rather than day-to-day variability.
Open questions
• What is the role of global-scale neutral waves in forming EPBs and/or determining their global distribution?
• What is the role of electric fields produced by magnetospheric forcing in the formation of EPBs?
Current roadmap
Key observables
The first key observable is the identification of the existence of plasma bubbles, along with any accompanying scintillation. This can be achieved on the ground via All-Sky Imagers, radar, GPS Total Electron Content (TEC) measurements, and from space via in situ plasma density measurements and remote imaging. Both types of measurements are needed, as ground-based gives near-constant monitoring for a fixed location and space-based can give global sampling. Combined observations from ground-based and space-based measurements can fill in the gaps in detection (e.g., Ngwira et al., 2013; Aa et al., 2020).
One of the key measurements needed for many of the forcing mechanisms here is that of the neutral atmosphere. This includes both neutral density and wind information over multiple longitudes to extract tides and planetary waves, as well as changes to the neutral wind dynamo and traveling atmospheric disturbances. It is important to note that changes in the neutral atmosphere can affect both the seeding mechanisms and the large-scale forcing mechanisms.
Another key component that needs longitudinally distinct measurements is that of electric fields and ion drifts. These can arise from Penetrating Electric Fields from storms, as well as the Neutral Wind Dynamo.
Finally, E-region measurements, including plasma density and metallic ions, have a significant effect on the ionospheric conductivities in the growth rate. Measurements from ionosondes and lidar can help shed light on this variability.
Existing measurements
• The GOLD mission is currently providing daily measurements of the ionosphere over the American and Atlantic sectors, including bubble activity (Eastes et al., 2020; Martinis et al., 2021).
• The ICON mission is currently detecting bubbles from in situ plasma measurements and from remote far ultraviolet measurements (Mende et al., 2017; Immel et al., 2018). Additionally, it provides remote wind profiles, allowing for the variability of the thermospheric drivers of the ionospheric dynamo (Harding et al., 2017).
• COSMIC-2 provides both in situ measurements of plasma bubbles as well as Radio Occultation measurements of the resulting scintillations from six platforms (Schreiner et al., 2020).
• DMSP (F17, F18) SSUSI observes plasma bubbles in near real time (Comberiate et al., 2010; Paxton et al., 2018).
• All-Sky Imagers around the world (e.g., Pimenta et al., 2003; Martinis and Mendillo, 2007; Shiokawa et al., 2015; Sharma et al., 2017) provide monitoring of bubbles.
• Ground-based TEC networks (e.g., Pi et al., 1997; Valladares and Chau, 2012; Olwendo et al., 2013) and ionsonde networks (e.g., Bullett et al., 2010; Reinisch and Galkin, 2011) can provide detection of bubbles and scintillation.
Upcoming measurements
A number of missions in operation and on the current roadmap will provide new and exciting insights into some of the drivers discussed here.
• The AWE mission (launching in 2023) will provide measurements of the Gravity Waves that can act as the seeds for plasma bubbles (Taylor et al., 2020).
• The Geospace Dynamics Constellation (GDC) will provide into how the drivers from high latitudes control the distribution and motion of ions and neutrals at lower latitudes (Jaynes et al., 2019). In later phases, the spacecraft will be separated in longitude, providing more global context.
• DYNAMIC will provide low altitude thermospheric winds that drive the dynamo (National Research Council, 2013). Polar orbiting measurements will allow the derivation of daily tides.
Discussion
However, there are key gaps in this existing roadmap when looking at the system science approach discussed here. Identifying the nightly existence/non-existence of bubbles globally requires a spacecraft approach, but this could take an in situ or remote approach. The GOLD spacecraft images the American and Atlantic sector nightly from a geostationary orbit at a relatively high sample rate, allowing for the identification of bubble onset times (Martinis et al., 2021). The images could be extended to multiple longitudes either through a different orbit (sacrificing revisit time for coverage) or by additional geostationary platforms.
From a satellite perspective, a very low inclination orbit would be desired. This allows for full coverage of the geomagnetic equator region. Pairing situ measurements with remote measurements would fill in the holes and provide information on the large-scale forcing that can enhance or suppress the growth of bubbles. A concept that implements this approach is the Geospace Observing System (listed as “FMT-4” in the LWSAC final report), which would provide two equatorial elliptical spacecraft with in situ instrumentation with a third spacecraft focused on remote measurements (Cohen et al., 2022). By pairing two elliptical orbits such that the apogee and perigee are in sync, the total satellite drag is reduced while low-altitude measurements are not compromised. This combination would provide comprehensive measurements of bubbles and their drivers.
In particular, low altitude in situ measurements of ions and neutrals would capture the bottomside formation of bubbles. Future mission concepts such as EN-LoTIS (ESA/NASA Lower Thermosphere-Ionosphere Science) could fill in the gap.
Where large missions are not planned to make required measurements, small satellites can also be used to fill in the gaps (Verkhoglyadova et al., 2021). The reduced development time could mean that the community should be planning these missions now to provide maximum impact alongside their larger counterparts.
As mentioned earlier, scintillation observations by remote sensing alone such as GNSS radio occultation (RO) may not provide accurate or spatially complete information regarding these structures. It is important that the number and orientation of RO line-of-sights through a given scintillation region be maximized. While the existing roadmap takes advantage of RO for EPB system science, the planned RO combined with in-situ observations will not adequately address the scintillation aspect of the system. However, taking advantage of commercial data buys for ionospheric RO data, small satellite hosting RO sensors, and RO sensors utilizing multiple GNSS constellations (e.g., GLONASS, Galileo), will enable EPB system science to include the generation and coupling of the smallest density structures associated with the phenomenon.
Numerical models of equatorial plasma bubbles have advanced significantly in the last 40 years (Yokoyama, 2017). One current divide is the scale sizes in the model required to capture global forcing vs. a high resolution localized model to capture bubbles development. Modeling techniques that incorporate growth rate analysis from a global perspective can be used to determine the relative importance of each energy path that modifies the equatorial regions (e.g., Carter et al., 2014b; Hysell et al., 2022; Smith and Klenzing, 2022). Another path forward is to incorporate variable grid scale ionosphere in a global model (Huba and Liu, 2020).
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
JK wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to manuscript concept and revision, including reading and approving the submitted version.
Funding
JK, GL, and JS are supported by NASA NNH20ZDA001N-LWS. AH is supported by the Space Precipitation Impacts project at Goddard Space Flight Center through the Heliophysics Internal Science Funding Model. KZ acknowledges support from the Office of Naval Research.
Conflict of interest
Author RB was employed by The Aerospace Corporation.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AaE.ZhangS.-R.EricksonP. J.VierinenJ.CosterA. J.GoncharenkoL. P.et al (2022). Significant ionospheric hole and equatorial plasma bubbles after the 2022 Tonga volcano eruption. Space20, e2022SW003101. 10.1029/2022SW003101
2
AaE.ZouS.EastesR.KaranD. K.ZhangS.-R.EricksonP. J.et al (2020). Coordinated ground-based and space-based observations of equatorial plasma bubbles. JGR. Space Phys.125, e2019JA027569. 10.1029/2019JA027569
3
AbduM. A. (2019). Day-to-day and short-term variabilities in the equatorial plasma bubble/spread f irregularity seeding and development. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci.6, 11. 10.1186/s40645-019-0258-1
4
AbduM. (2012). Equatorial spread f/plasma bubble irregularities under storm time disturbance electric fields. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys.Atmospheric Coupling Process. Sun-Earth Syst.75-76, 44–56. 10.1016/j.jastp.2011.04.024
5
BookerH. G.WellsH. W. (1938). Scattering of radio waves by the f-region of the ionosphere. J. Geophys. Res.43, 249–256. 10.1029/te043i003p00249
6
BullettT.MalagniniA.PezzopaneM.ScottoC. (2010). Application of autoscala to ionograms recorded by the vipir ionosonde. Adv. Space Res.45, 1156–1172. 10.1016/j.asr.2010.01.024
7
CarterB. A.RettererJ. M.YizengawE.GrovesK.CatonR.McNamaraL.et al (2014a). Geomagnetic control of equatorial plasma bubble activity modeled by the tiegcm with kp. Geophys. Res. Lett.41, 5331–5339. 10.1002/2014GL060953
8
CarterB. A.YizengawE.PradiptaR.RettererJ. M.GrovesK.ValladaresC.et al (2016). Global equatorial plasma bubble occurrence during the 2015 st. patrick’s day storm. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.121, 894–905. 10.1002/2015JA022194
9
CarterB. A.YizengawE.RettererJ. M.FrancisM.TerkildsenM.MarshallR.et al (2014b). An analysis of the quiet time day-to-day variability in the formation of postsunset equatorial plasma bubbles in the southeast Asian region. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.119, 3206–3223. 10.1002/2013JA019570
10
CerveraM. A.ThomasR. M. (2006). Latitudinal and temporal variation of equatorial ionospheric irregularities determined from gps scintillation observations. Ann. Geophys.24, 3329–3341. 10.5194/angeo-24-3329-2006
11
CohenC. M. S.BergerT.DesaiM. I.DuncanN.HoG. C.MaruyamaN.et al (2022). Living with a star architecture committee report for the nasa heliophysics division: An architecture recommendation for nasa’s living with a star program. Washington DC: NASA.
12
ComberiateJ.PaxtonL. J.PaxtonL. J. (2010). Coordinated uv imaging of equatorial plasma bubbles using timed/guvi and dmsp/ssusi. Space8, S10002. 10.1029/2009sw000546
13
EastesR. W.McClintockW. E.BurnsA. G.AndersonD. N.AnderssonL.AryalS.et al (2020). Initial observations by the gold mission. JGR. Space Phys.125, e2020JA027823. 10.1029/2020JA027823
14
HardingB. J.MakelaJ. J.EnglertC. R.MarrK. D.HarlanderJ. M.EnglandS. L.et al (2017). The MIGHTI wind retrieval algorithm: Description and verification. Space Sci. Rev.212, 585–600. 10.1007/s11214-017-0359-3
15
HardingB. J.WuY.-J. J.AlkenP.YamazakiY.TriplettC. C.ImmelT. J.et al (2022). Impacts of the january 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption on the ionospheric dynamo: Icon-mighti and swarm observations of extreme neutral winds and currents. Geophys. Res. Lett.49, e2022GL098577. 10.1029/2022gl098577
16
HeelisR. A.MauteA. (2020). Challenges to understanding the earth’s ionosphere and thermosphere. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.125, e2019JA027497. 10.1029/2019ja027497
17
HuangC. Y.BurkeW. J.MachuzakJ. S.GentileL. C.SultanP. J. (2002). Equatorial plasma bubbles observed by dmsp satellites during a full solar cycle: Toward a global climatology. J. Geophys. Res.107, SIA 7-1–SIA 7-10. 10.1029/2002ja009452
18
HubaJ. D.KrallJ.DrobD. (2020). Modeling the impact of metallic ion layers on equatorial spread with Sami3/esf. Geophys. Res. Lett.47, e2020GL087224. 10.1029/2020gl087224
19
HubaJ. D.LiuH.-L. (2020). Global modeling of equatorial spread f with Sami3/waccm-x. Geophys. Res. Lett.47, e2020GL088258. 10.1029/2020gl088258
20
HysellD. L. (2000). An overview and synthesis of plasma irregularities in equatorial spread f. J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestrial Phys.62, 1037–1056. 10.1016/s1364-6826(00)00095-x
21
HysellD. L.FangT. W.Fuller-RowellT. J. (2022). Modeling equatorial f-region ionospheric instability using a regional ionospheric irregularity model and wam-ipe. JGR. Space Phys.127, e2022JA030513. 10.1029/2022JA030513
22
ImmelT. J.EnglandS. L.MendeS. B.HeelisR. A.EnglertC. R.EdelsteinJ.et al (2018). The ionospheric connection explorer mission: Mission goals and design. Space Sci. Rev.214, 13. 10.1007/s11214-017-0449-2
23
JaynesA.RidleyA.BishopR.HeelisR.ZestaE.AndersonB.et al (2019). Nasa science and technology definition team for the geospace dynamics constellation final report. Washington DC: NASA.
24
KelleyM. C.FejerB. G.GonzalesC. A. (1979). An explanation for anomalous equatorial ionospheric electric fields associated with a northward turning of the interplanetary magnetic field. Geophys. Res. Lett.6, 301–304. 10.1029/GL006i004p00301
25
KelleyM. C.MakelaJ. J.de La BeaujardièreO.RettererJ. M. (2011). Convective ionospheric storms: A review. Rev. Geophys.49, RG2003. 10.1029/2010rg000340
26
KilH.HeelisR. A.PaxtonL. J.PaxtonL. J.OhS.-J. (2009). Formation of a plasma depletion shell in the equatorial ionosphere. J. Geophys. Res.114, A11302. 10.1029/2009ja014369
27
LeG.LiuG.YizengawE.EnglertC. R. (2022). Intense equatorial electrojet and counter electrojet caused by the 15 january 2022 Tonga volcanic eruption: Space- and ground-based observations. Geophys. Res. Lett.49, e2022GL099002. 10.1029/2022GL099002
28
LiuG.EnglandS. L.LinC. S.PedatellaN. M.KlenzingJ. H.EnglertC. R.et al (2021). Evaluation of atmospheric 3-day waves as a source of day-to-day variation of the ionospheric longitudinal structure. Geophys. Res. Lett.48, e2021GL094877. 10.1029/2021GL094877
29
LiuG.ImmelT. J.EnglandS. L.FreyH. U.MendeS. B.KumarK. K.et al (2013). Impacts of atmospheric ultrafast kelvin waves on radio scintillations in the equatorial ionosphere. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys.118, 885–891. 10.1002/jgra.50139
30
MagdalenoS.HerraizM.AltadillD.de la MorenaB. A. (2017). Climatology characterization of equatorial plasma bubbles using gps data. J. Space Weather Space Clim.7, A3. 10.1051/swsc/2016039
31
MakelaJ. J.OtsukaY. (2011). Overview of nighttime ionospheric instabilities at low- and mid-latitudes: Coupling aspects resulting in structuring at the mesoscale. Space Sci. Rev.168, 419–440. 10.1007/s11214-011-9816-6
32
MartinisC.DaniellR.EastesR.NorrellJ.SmithJ.KlenzingJ.et al (2021). Longitudinal variation of post-sunset plasma depletions from the global-scale observations of the limb and disk (gold) mission. JGR. Space Phys.6, 1–10. 10.1029/2020ja028510
33
MartinisC.MendilloM. (2007). Equatorial spread f-related airglow depletions at arecibo and conjugate observations. J. Geophys. Res.112. 10.1029/2007JA012403
34
MendeS. B.FreyH. U.RiderK.ChouC.HarrisS. E.SiegmundO. H.et al (2017). The far ultra-violet imager on the icon mission. Space Sci. Rev.212, 655–696. 10.1007/s11214-017-0386-0
35
National Research Council (2013). Solar and space Physics. Washington, DC: A Science for a Technological SocietyThe National Academies Press. 10.17226/13060
36
NgwiraC. M.KlenzingJ.OlwendoJ.D’ujangaF. M.StonebackR.BakiP. (2013). A study of intense ionospheric scintillation observed during a quiet day in the east african low-latitude region. Radio Sci.48, 396–405. 10.1002/rds.20045
37
OlwendoO.BalukuT.BakiP.CilliersP.MitoC.DohertyP. (2013). Low latitude ionospheric scintillation and zonal irregularity drifts observed with gps-scinda system and closely spaced vhf receivers in Kenya. Adv. Space Res.51, 1715–1726. 10.1016/j.asr.2012.12.017
38
OssakowS. L. (1981). Spread-F theories—A review. J. Atmos. Terr. Phys.43, 437–452. 10.1016/0021-9169(81)90107-0
39
PaxtonL. J.SchaeferR. K.ZhangY.KilH.HicksJ. E. (2018). Ssusi and ssusi-lite: Providing space situational awareness and support for over 25 years. Johns Hopkins Apl. Tech. Dig.34, 388–400.
40
PiX.MannucciA. J.LindqwisterU. J.HoC. M. (1997). Monitoring of global ionospheric irregularities using the worldwide gps network. Geophys. Res. Lett.24, 2283–2286. 10.1029/97GL02273
41
PimentaA.BittencourtJ.FagundesP.SahaiY.BuritiR.TakahashiH.et al (2003). Ionospheric plasma bubble zonal drifts over the tropical region: A study using OI emission all-sky images. J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestrial Phys.65, 1117–1126. 10.1016/S1364-6826(03)00149-4
42
ReinischB. W.GalkinI. A. (2011). Global ionospheric radio observatory (giro). Earth Planets Space63, 377–381. 10.5047/eps.2011.03.001
43
RettererJ. M.RoddyP. (2014). Faith in a seed: On the origins of equatorial plasma bubbles. Ann. Geophys.32, 485–498. 10.5194/angeo-32-485-2014
44
SchreinerW.WeissJ.AnthesR.BraunJ.ChuV.FongJ.et al (2020). Cosmic-2 radio occultation constellation: First results. Geophys. Res. Lett.47, e2019GL086841. 10.1029/2019gl086841
45
SchunkR.NagyA. (2009). “Ionospheres: Physics, plasma Physics, and chemistry,” in Cambridge atmospheric and space science series. 2 edn (Cambridge University Press). 10.1017/CBO9780511635342
46
SharmaA.GuravO.ChavanG.GaikwadH.GhodpageR.PatilP. (2017). Variation in occurrence of equatorial plasma bubbles (epbs) using all sky imager from low latitude station kolhapur (16.8°n, 74.2°e, 10.6°dip. lat.)Adv. Space Res.60, 2452–2463. 10.1016/j.asr.2017.09.014
47
ShiokawaK.OtsukaY.LynnK. J.WilkinsonP.TsugawaT. (2015). Airglow-imaging observation of plasma bubble disappearance at geomagnetically conjugate points. Earth Planets Space67, 43. 10.1186/s40623-015-0202-6
48
SmithJ. M.KlenzingJ. (2022). Growin: Modeling ionospheric instability growth rates. J. Space Weather Space Clim.12, 26. 10.1051/swsc/2022021
49
SultanP. J. (1996). Linear theory and modeling of the Rayleigh-taylor instability leading to the occurrence of equatorial spread f. J. Geophys. Res.101, 26875–26891. 1978–2012. 10.1029/96ja00682
50
TaylorM. J.ForbesJ. M. M.FrittsD. C.SnivelyJ. B.EckermannS. D.LiuH.et al (2020). “Developing the NASA atmospheric waves experiment (AWE),” in AGU fall meeting abstracts, 2020, SA011–07.
51
ValladaresC. E.ChauJ. L. (2012). The low-latitude ionosphere sensor network: Initial results. Radio Sci.47. 10.1029/2011RS004978
52
VerkhoglyadovaO. P.Bussy-ViratC. D.CaspiA.JacksonD. R.KalegaevV.KlenzingJ.et al (2021). Addressing gaps in space weather operations and understanding with small satellites. Space19, e2020SW002566. 10.1029/2020SW002566
53
YokoyamaT. (2017). A review on the numerical simulation of equatorial plasma bubbles toward scintillation evaluation and forecasting. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci.4, 37. 10.1186/s40645-017-0153-6
54
ZawdieK.BelehakiA.BurleighM.ChouM.-Y.DhadlyM. S.GreerK.et al (2022). Impacts of acoustic and gravity waves on the ionosphere. Front. Astronomy Space Sci.9, 1064152. 10.3389/fspas.2022.1064152
Summary
Keywords
ionosphere, thermosphere, plasma bubble, system science, plasma irregularities, space physics
Citation
Klenzing J, Halford AJ, Liu G, Smith JM, Zhang Y, Zawdie K, Maruyama N, Pfaff R and Bishop RL (2023) A system science perspective of the drivers of equatorial plasma bubbles. Front. Astron. Space Sci. 9:1064150. doi: 10.3389/fspas.2022.1064150
Received
07 October 2022
Accepted
06 December 2022
Published
04 January 2023
Volume
9 - 2022
Edited by
Jay R. Johnson, Andrews University, United States
Reviewed by
Tieyan Wang, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, United Kingdom
John Retterer, Boston College, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2023 Klenzing, Halford, Liu, Smith, Zhang, Zawdie, Maruyama, Pfaff and Bishop.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Jeff Klenzing, jeff.klenzing@nasa.gov
This article was submitted to Space Physics, a section of the journal Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.