Skip to main content

Quasi-6-day wave effects in ionospheric E and F region during the recent solar maximum 2014–2015

Abstract

We show the statistical characteristics of quasi-6-day wave (Q6DW) absolute amplitude in foE and foF2 during 2014–2015 by using six ionosondes at different latitudes. The results show that foE perturbations maximized at mid-latitudes during equinoxes, and the maximum amplitude of Q6DW in foF2 occurred near the northern crest of equatorial ionospheric anomaly (EIA). In addition, the absolute amplitude of Q6DW in foF2 increased with increasing solar activity. Our observations suggest that the dissipative Q6DW-like oscillations in the lower thermosphere may cause variations in the thermospheric neutral density via mixing effect and further result in foE disturbances in Q6DW events. Furthermore, the E region wind dynamo could also be modulated by the 6-day wave, thus leading to the disturbances in vertical plasma velocity via E × B drifts and F region electron density. Our observational investigation provides evidence of thermosphere–ionosphere coupling in the mid- and low-latitude region.

Introduction

As a significant oscillation in the middle atmosphere, planetary waves (PWs) from lower atmosphere have been investigated over the past several decades (Madden and Julian 1972; Riggin et al. 2006; Chang et al. 2010; Gu et al. 2013; Onohara et al. 2013). The westward propagating quasi-6-day wave (Q6DW) with period of 5–7 days, is one of the most prominent traveling PWs in the mesosphere–lower thermosphere (MLT) region. Previous studies have revealed the effect of Q6DW on the wind and temperature in the MLT region by both ground-based and space-based instruments (Rodgers 1976; Venne 1989; Talaat et al. 2001, 2002; Liu et al. 2004; Garcia et al. 2005; Sridharan et al. 2008; Gan et al. 2015; Gu et al. 2018). Study of Q6DW in winds by using Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite/High Resolution Doppler Imager (HRDI) data was shown in Wu et al. 1994. Their results illustrated that the maximum occurrence of Q6DW occurred during equinoxes in the equatorial and mid-latitude region in zonal and meridional winds, respectively. Gan et al. (2015) also presented the morphology of Q6DW in Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics Doppler Interferometer (TIDI) horizontal wind and Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) temperature data during 2002–2007. These global distributions of Q6DW occurrence presented in Gan et al. (2015) showed similar characteristics of Q6DW in the MLT region. Numerous research results have proposed that these seasonal variations of Q6DW response in the MLT region which reached a maximum during equinoxes were determined by background wave source, mean wind structure, baroclinic/barotropic instability, and critical layers of the wave (Meyer and Forbes 1997; Liu et al. 2004).

Recent studies have investigated the effect of Q6DW on the ionosphere by thermosphere–ionosphere coupling, which was generally attributed to the nonlinear interaction between tide and Q6DW and the modulation of E region dynamo due to wind disturbances in the MLT region (Miyoshi 1999; Gu et al. 2014, 2018; Gan et al. 2016, 2017; Forbes and Zhang 2017; Yamazaki, 2018). Pedatella et al. (2012) and Forbes and Zhang (2017) have proposed that strong Q6DW–tide nonlinear interactions could produce secondary waves that vertically propagated into the E region. By using the Thermosphere–Ionosphere–Mesosphere Electrodynamics General Circulation Model (TIME-GCM), Gan et al. [2016] suggested that the zonal electric field in the equatorial E layer could be modulated by neutral wind perturbations due to Q6DW in the MLT region, which was confirmed in the work shown in Yamazaki et al. (2018) based on observations from Challenging Minisatellite Payload (CHAMP) and Swarm satellites. Yamazaki (2018) investigated the characteristics of Q6DW in total electron content (TEC) in the low-latitude and equatorial region over a solar cycle. Wave amplitude peaks appeared in equinoxes which agreed with those observed in neutral wind and temperature in the MLT region. Gu et al. (2018) further analyzed the characteristics of Q6DW in TEC and horizontal wind in the MLT region. They suggested that polarization electric fields modulated by zonal wind perturbations in the equatorial E region could affect daytime plasma velocity by E × B drift, which eventually resulted in Q6DW-like oscillations in TEC in the equatorial ionospheric anomaly (EIA) region via the equatorial fountain effect. Furthermore, the dissipation of PWs in the MLT region may also play a significant role in the vertical coupling between thermosphere and ionosphere. Based on multiple observations, Yamazaki et al. 2020 revealed 6-day variations simultaneously in the equatorial electrojet, F-region electron density, and TEC during the September 2019, which were attributed to the Q6DW simultaneously observed in the lower atmosphere. Yue and Wang (2014) first investigated the PWs-induced variations in the thermosphere/ionosphere using the TIME-GCM and suggested that mixing effects caused by PWs could lead to the changes of both O/N2 ratio and TEC. The theoretical results were later confirmed by recent work based on satellite observations Gan et al. 2015. They showed the reduction of O/N2 ratio and F2 layer electron density during Q6DW events.

The 6-day variations in the critical frequency of F2 layer (foF2) have been studied in the past several decades (Laštovička 1996; Laštovička and Mlch 1996; Laštovička 2006a). Laštovička et al. (2003, 2006b) investigated the planetary wave type oscillations in foF2 by using ionosonde observations. These results presented that there was an obvious quasi-6-day oscillation amplitude in foF2. Altadill and Apostolov [2003] suggested the 6-day variations in foF2 were attributed to the planetary wave activity in the MLT region. Laštovička and Mlch [1996] presented that the 6-day variations in foF2 have also distinct seasonal and solar activity variations. These results showed that the quasi-6-day oscillation amplitude in foF2 reached a minimum during the solar minimum in summer. Although there are many reports on 6-day variations of foF2 in the context of vertical coupling by the Q6DW, a statistical analysis about Q6DW effects on the critical frequency of E layer (foE) has not been reported yet. By using ionosonde observations at different latitude region during 2014–2015, the statistical results of 6-day variations in foE and foF2 are first presented in this study. The main objective of this work is to study the effect of Q6DW on ionospheric E and F layer by thermosphere–ionosphere coupling.

Data and methods

In this present study, the ionograms are obtained from January 2014 to December 2015, which is the most recent solar maximum period. The ionosondes are located at Guam (13.62°N, 144.86°E, dip angle 12.65°), Sanya (19.40°N, 109.13°E, dip angle 27.12°), Wuhan (30.50°N, 114.40°E, dip angle 46.54°), Beijing (40.30°N, 116.20°E, dip angle 59.18°), Mohe (52.00°N, 122.52°E, dip angle 69.73°), and Yakutsk (62.00°N, 129.60°E, dip angle 76.46°). The geographic locations are presented in Fig. 1. The ionograms are routinely recorded every 15 min at all stations, which are automatically scaled by the computer routine automatic real-time ionogram scaler with true height analysis (Reinisch et al. 2009). The ionospheric parameters, namely, foE and foF2 are utilized for studying Q6DW effects on the ionosphere.

Fig. 1
figure1

Geographic locations of ionosondes at Guam, Sanya, Wuhan, Beijing, Mohe, and Yakutsk

To obtain the information of wave in foE and foF2, the least square fitting model is adopted in the following formula within a 20-day running window at a 1-day time step:

$$ {\text{y}} = {\text{A}} + Bco{\text{s}} \left[ {2\pi \left( {\frac{{t_{{\text{d}}} + t_{{\text{u}}} }}{T}} \right)} \right] + {\text{C}} \sin \left[ {2\pi \left( {\frac{{t_{{\text{d}}} + t_{{\text{u}}} }}{T}} \right)} \right], $$
(1)

where A represents the background value; T represents the period of wave in days; td represents the day of the year; tu represents the universal time in days; and B, C represent the coefficient of the cosine and sine term, respectively. The amplitude of wave ywave is written as:

$$ y_{wave} = \sqrt {B^{2} \left( T \right) + C^{2} \left( T \right)} . $$
(2)

In this study, the parameters A, B, and C are calculated separately at different local times. The period T is considered with ranges of 4–8 days by increments of 0.125 day.

Results

Figure 2 presents the time series of foE during 2014–2015 at six stations with 1-h time resolution. There were serious data shortages at Wuhan in 2014–2015 and at Beijing in 2014 in Fig. 2. The maximum value of foE occurred at local noon in June solstice and minimum appeared in December solstice. foE value was greater at low-latitudes than that at middle-latitudes. Figure 3 shows the time series of foF2 during 2014–2015. foF2 peaks were observed during 12:00–18:00 LT in equinoxes at Guam and Sanya near the northern crest of EIA due to the equatorial fountain effect. In addition, the value of foF2 increased with increasing solar activity (F10.7 ≈ 146 in 2014 and F10.7 ≈ 118 in 2015). It should be noted that there is a secondary maximum in foF2 occurring around local midnight during the equinoxes occurring at all stations equatorward of Beijing. The reason may be attributed to the enhanced electric field (Liu et al. 2013; Zhao et al. 2008).

Fig. 2
figure2

Time sequences of foE during 2014–2015 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA)

Fig. 3
figure3

Time sequences of foF2 during 2014–2015 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA)

The spectrum of foE at 12:00 LT at all stations in 2014 is presented in Fig. 4, except for Wuhan and Beijing due to data shortage. foE disturbance amplitude with period of ~ 6.5 days reached a maximum with about 0.2 MHz at Mohe in April, which indicates that there was a prominent Q6DW event in MLT region at Mohe during Spring. Furthermore, somewhat weaker disturbance in foE with period of 4.5–7.5 days was also observed at GU station during October, at SA station during March and October, at MH station during July and November and at YA station during November, respectively.

Fig. 4
figure4

The time variations of the foE spectrum at 12:00 LT during 2014 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA)

Figure 5 illustrates the foF2 spectrum during 2014 at a fixed local time of 12:00 LT, which was clearly dominated by a PW with period of ~ 6 days. The maximum amplitude of Q6DW in foF2 occurred during April and November at all stations. The strongest absolute response in foF2 appeared near the northern crest of EIA (GU and SA stations) with a maximum amplitude of ~ 1.4 MHz which accounted for ~ 8% of background foF2. Our results suggest that the latitude–season variations of Q6DW amplitude in foF2 agreed well with the morphology of background foF2. Furthermore, compared to the large variation in Q6DW periods seen in foE in Fig. 4, the Q6DW periods in foF2 are all quite similar for all events observed at all the stations. It should be noted that somewhat weaker disturbance in foF2 with period of 5 –7 days was also observed at all stations during summer (June, July and August). The reason may be that foF2 reached a minimum at all stations during summer, resulting in the weaker absolute response in foF2 at all stations during summer.

Fig. 5
figure5

The time variations of the foF2 spectrum at 12:00 LT during 2014 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA). Dashed red lines represent the period of 5 and 7 days, respectively

The morphology of spectrum in foE at 12:00 LT at all stations in 2015 is shown in Fig. 6, expect for Wuhan due to data shortage. Similar characteristics of Q6DW in foE are also found in Fig. 6. The maximum amplitude of Q6DW in foF2 with period of ~ 7.0 days occurred during May at Mohe. Furthermore, somewhat weaker disturbance in foE with period of 4.5–7.5 days was also observed at GU station during November, at SA station during March and September, at BP station during September, at MH station during February and at YA station during April and October, respectively. Similar temporal and spatial distribution of Q6DW in foF2 in 2015 is also found in Fig. 7. Q6DW amplitude in foF2 reached a maximum at GU and SA stations during equinoxes. Compared to the morphology of Q6DW in foF2 during 2014 in Fig. 5, the weaker amplitude of Q6DW in foF2 during 2015 may reveal the influence of solar activity, which was consistent with previous studies [e.g., Yamazaki 2018].

Fig. 6
figure6

The time variations of the foE spectrum at 12:00 LT during 2015 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA)

Fig. 7
figure7

The time variations of the foF2 spectrum at 12:00 LT during 2015 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA)

Figure 8 shows the local time versus month structures of Q6DW in foF2 during 2014. In this study, the maximum amplitude of PWs with period of 5–7 days was adopted as the amplitude of Q6DW at different local time. Amplitude peaks were observed around 12:00–18:00 LT in the northern EIA crest region (at GU and SA stations) during equinoxes, which agreed well with the ionospheric fountain effect. The maximum amplitude of Q6DW was ~ 1.5 MHz at Sanya at 16:00 LT, while amplitude reached minima during 06:00–08:00 LT. At the mid-latitude region, the absolute amplitude decreased with increasing latitude. Similar variations of Q6DW amplitude in 2015 are also shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 8
figure8

Average amplitude of Q6DW (s = 1) in foF2 during 2014 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA)

Fig. 9
figure9

Average amplitude of Q6DW (s = 1) in foF2 during 2015 at Guam (GU), Sanya (SA), Wuhan (WU), Beijing (BP), Mohe (MH) and Yakusk (YA)

Discussion

In the above analysis, we mainly investigated the statistical features of Q6DW in foE and foF2 based on 2014–2015 data set obtained by six ionosondes in different latitude region. The general characteristics of Q6DW were basically similar to previous studies (Gu et al. 2018, Yamazaki 2018). Our results have suggested that the thermosphere–ionosphere coupling may be considered as the main reason for the effect of Q6DW on ionosphere.

In our reported results, the maximum amplitude of Q6DW in foE occurred at Mohe in equinoxes during 2014–2015. The generation mechanism of E region may help understand foE perturbations due to Q6DW in the MLT region. Daytime E layer at mid-latitudes is mainly produced in the ionization process of neutral O2 by solar EUV radiation (Kelley 2009). Following Ivanov-Kholodny and Nusinov 1979, the expression of foE is given as follows:

$$ \begin{gathered} f\;oE\; \propto \;\left( {q_{m} /\alpha_{m}^{\prime } } \right)^{0.25} \hfill \\ q_{m} /\alpha_{m}^{\prime } = \frac{{I_{\infty } \sigma^{i} \cos \chi }}{{\alpha_{m}^{\prime } H\sigma^{a} e}}, \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$
(3)

where qm and \(\alpha^{\prime}_{{\text{m}}}\) are the maximum ionization rate and effective dissociative recombination coefficient in the E layer, respectively.\({\text{I}}_{\infty }\) is the incident ionizing flux. σi and σa are the ionization and absorption cross sections. χ is the solar zenith angle. H is the O2 scale height. e is elementary charge. According to Eq. (3), the variations of qm, \({\text{I}}_{\infty }\), σi, σa, and χ depend on local time and solar activity. Thus, we propose that the morphology of Q6DW in foE may be explained by the variations of \(\alpha_{{\text{m}}}^{\prime }\) or H during Q6DW events.

Ion compositions in the daytime mid-latitude E region are dominated by NO+ and O2+ (Kelley 2009). Danilov (1994) and Danilov and Smirnova (1997) have suggested that \(\alpha_{{\text{m}}}^{\prime }\) depended on the NO+/O2+ ratio, which was mainly controlled by [NO] concentration in the E region. In our cases, the maximum amplitude of Q6DW in foE was ~ 0.2 MHz which accounted for ~ 6% of background value. According to incoherent scatter radar observations, Mikhailov et al. (2007) proposed that 5% variations in foE may need the changes with a factor of 8–10 in [NO], which were impossible for the quiet daytime mid-latitude E region. Therefore, we suggest that the effect of \(\alpha_{{\text{m}}}^{\prime }\) variations during Q6DW events on foE disturbances could be neglected.

The effect of scale height H variations on foE changes has been studied by previous researches (Ivanov-Kholodny and Nusinov 1979; Mikhailov 1983; Nusinov 1988; Rishbeth 1990; Mikhailov et al. 2017). Mikhailov (1983) proposed that foE variations due to H variations were more likely to be induced by neutral particles vertical motion rather than neutral temperature changes. They presented that the variations of neutral particle concentration by downwelling (upwelling) of neutral gas could cause a (an) reduction (increment) of [O2] effective scale height H, resulting in an (a) increment (reduction) of foE following Eq. (3). The changes of O, O2, and N2 in the lower thermosphere during quasi-2-day wave (QTDW) events were shown in Yue and Wang (2014) using numerical simulation. They demonstrated that the extra meridional circulation induced by the dissipation of PWs could enhance the mixing of neutral composition, resulting in the changes of thermosphere/ionosphere. In addition, the reduction of O and the increase of O2 and N2 shown in their work reached the maximum near 50° latitude at 120 km, which could induce the effective scale height H decrease and eventually cause foE maximum disturbances at mid-latitudes during QTDW events. In our observed results, Q6DW maximum amplitude in foE occurred at Mohe (52.00°N, 122.52°E) during 2014–2015, which was agreement with the above analysis. Moreover, no significant 6-day variations in foE disturbances were observed at other stations. Therefore, we proposed that the effect of Q6DW on foE might be explained by mixing effect induced by the dissipation of Q6DW in the MLT region.

It should be noted that the period of foE disturbance is not strictly within 6 days, which varies from 4.5 days to 7.5 days. Liu et al. (2004) suggested that this phenomenon may be caused by the effect of Doppler shift. In addition, the large variation in Q6DW periods seen in foE could also be caused by ionospheric parameter foE measurement errors, which may be induced due to the presence of sporadic E layer (ES). Kelley [2009] proposed that an enhanced metallic-ion layer (a factor of 2–5 in foE) is frequently observed in ionospheric E region in mid- and low-latitude regions. The high-density Es could result in the measurement errors in foE, which could lead to a deviation in the period of foE disturbance during the Q6DW events.

Our statistical results also presented that the latitude structures of 6-day oscillation in foF2 reached a maximum near the northern crest of EIA, which indicated the effect of Q6DW on the equatorial fountain effect via modulating E region dynamo in the MLT region (Gan et al. 2016, 2018; Gu et al. 2018; Yamazaki 2018; Yamazaki et al. 2018). Liu et al. (2010) showed that zonal gradients of zonal and meridional wind perturbations from PWs could generate convergence/divergence of Pedersen and Hall currents, resulting in eastward polarized electric fields and equatorial vertical ion drifts. According to the dynamo theory, the wind-driven eastward currents are given as follows:

$$ \begin{gathered} J_{x}^{\text{P}} = - \sigma_{P} vB{\text{sin}}{\text{I}} , \hfill \\ J_{x}^{H} = \sigma_{H} uB, \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$
(4)

where \(J_{x}^{\text{P}}\) and \(J_{x}^{H}\) are eastward Pedersen and Hall currents, respectively. \(\sigma_{P}\) and \(\sigma_{H}\) are Pedersen and Hall conductivities. u and v are zonal and meridional winds in the magnetic coordinates. B represents the geomagnetic field. I is the magnetic dip angle. From Eq. (4), it is found that \(J_{x}^{H}\) is larger at magnetic low-latitude and equatorial region compared to \(J_{x}^{\text{P}}\) due to the finite dip angle. In addition, based on TIDI observations, zonal wind perturbations in the MLT region during Q6DW events were much stronger than those of meridional wind at low-latitude and equatorial region Gan et al. 2015. Therefore, we propose that the zonal wind component of Q6DW in the MLT region contributes more to foF2 variations at low-latitude and equatorial region by thermosphere–ionosphere coupling.

Recent studies have presented that the nonlinear interaction between tide and Q6DW in the coupling process also resulted in the variations in the F region ionosphere, especially the diurnal and semidiurnal variability. In the recent modeling work, Gan et al. (2016) illustrated migrating diurnal and semidiurnal tidal disturbances in F region electron densities during Q6DW events. Their results suggested that short-term variability of F region electron densities may result from strong Q6DW–tide nonlinear interaction via thermosphere–ionosphere coupling. Similar conclusions were also shown in Liu et al. (2010) and Yue et al. (2016). Furthermore, mixing effect induced by the dissipation of Q6DW in the MLT region could cause not only foE variations, but also foF2 changes. With the decreased O and increased O2 and N2 propagating into the F region by molecular diffusion, O/N2 ratio presented in Yue and Wang (2014) was decreased by about 16% and 20% near the ionospheric F2 peak at low-latitudes and mid-latitudes. According to previous study, F2 region electron density was proportional to O/N2 ratio (Rishbeth 1998). Therefore, the reduced O/N2 ratio could also produce the variations of foF2 during Q6DW events.

Yamazaki 2018 presented the effect of solar activity on the absolute amplitude of Q6DW in TEC based on a long-term data set during 2004–2017. They showed that absolute amplitude at low-latitudes increased with increasing solar activity. In this work, we presented similar features of Q6DW absolute amplitude in foF2 during 2014–2015. The weaker amplitude occurred in 2015 due to lower solar activity. Our study provides observational evidences of the solar activity dependence of absolute amplitude in foF2 response to Q6DW from lower atmosphere.

Summary

In this work, we reported observations of six ionosondes during the most recent solar maximum 2014–2015. Morphology of Q6DW absolute amplitude in foE and foF2 at different latitudes was investigated during this period. We also discussed the effects of Q6DW in the MLT region on ionosphere via thermosphere–ionosphere coupling. The conclusions are summarized as follows:

1. In our statistical results, the maximum amplitude of Q6DW in foF2 occurred around 12:00–18:00 LT in equinoxes near the northern EIA crest region. The absolute amplitude in foE reached the maximum in equinoxes at mid-latitudes. In addition, the solar activity dependence of absolute amplitude in foF2 due to Q6DW was also shown in our study. These results were in agreement with previous studies.

2. It is suggested that the mixing effect induced by the dissipation of Q6DW in the MLT region could change E region neutral composition and reduce effective scale height H, which eventually caused foE disturbances during Q6DW events. Furthermore, equatorial zonal wind disturbances due to Q6DW in the MLT region could modulate E region dynamo and vertical plasma drifts, resulting in F region electron density changes in the northern crest of EIA via equatorial fountain effect. Our study proposes that the thermosphere–ionosphere coupling plays a key role in ionospheric variations due to Q6DW from lower atmosphere.

Key points

  • Q6DW signatures in foE and foF2 are simultaneously examined using an array of ionosondes.

  • The latitudinal changes of Q6DW in foE and foF2 may be caused by mixing effects and modulation of E region dynamo due to PWs, respectively.

  • Thermosphere–ionosphere coupling may play a significant role in the effect of Q6DW on ionosphere in the mid- and low-latitude region.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Abbreviations

Q6DW:

Quasi-6-day wave

EIA:

Equatorial ionospheric anomaly

PWs:

Planetary waves

MLT:

Mesosphere–lower thermosphere

TIDI:

Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics Doppler Interferometer

SABER:

Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry

TIME-GCM:

Thermosphere–Ionosphere–Mesosphere Electrodynamics General Circulation Model

CHAMP:

Challenging Minisatellite Payload

TEC:

Total electron content

QTDW:

Quasi-2-day wave

References

  1. Altadill D, Apostolov EM (2003) Time and scale size of planetary wave signatures in the ionospheric F region: Role of the geomagnetic activity and mesosphere/lower thermosphere winds. J Geophys Res 108(A11):1403. https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JA010015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang LC, Palo SE, Liu HL, Fang TW, Lin CS (2010) Response of the thermosphere and ionosphere to an ultra-fast Kelvin wave. J Geophys Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA015453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Danilov AD (1994) Ion chemistry of the lower thermosphere. J Atmos Solar Terr Phys 56:1213–1225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9169(94)90059-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Danilov AD, Smirnova NV (1997) Long-term trends of the ion composition in the E region. Geomag Aeronom 37(N4):35–40

    Google Scholar 

  5. Forbes JM, Zhang XL (2017) The quasi-Q6DW and its interactions with solar tides. Journal Geophy Res Space Phy 122:4764–4776. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ja023954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gan Q, Yue J, Chang LC, Wang WB, Zhang SD, Du J (2015) Observations of thermosphere and ionosphere changes due to the dissipative 65-day wave in the lower thermosphere. Ann Geophys 33(7):913–922. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-33-913-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gan Q, Wang WB, Yue J, Liu HL, Chang LC, Zhang SD, Du JA (2016) Numerical simulation of the 6 day wave effects on the ionosphere: Dynamo modulation. J Geophys Res Space Phy 121:10103–10116. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Gan Q, Oberheide J, Yue J, Wang WB (2017) Short-term variability in the ionosphere due to the nonlinear interaction between the 6 day wave and migrating tides. J Geophy Res Space Phys 122:8831–8846. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ja023947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gan Q, Oberheide J, Pedatella NM (2018) Sources, sinks, and propagation characteristics of the quasi 6-day wave and its impact on the residual mean circulation. J Geophys Res Atmospheres 123:9152–9170. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia RR, Lieberman R, Russell JM, Mlynczak MG (2005) Large-scale waves in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere observed by SABER. J Atmospheric Sci 62(12):4384–4399. https://doi.org/10.1175/Jas3612.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gu SY, Li T, Dou XK, Wu Q, Mlynczak MG, Russell JM (2013) Observations of quasi-two-day wave by TIMED/SABER and TIMED/TIDI. J Geophy Res Atmospheres 118:1624–1639. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gu S-Y, Liu HL, Li T, Dou XK, Wu Q, Russell JM (2014) Observation of the neutral-ion coupling through 6 day planetary wave. J Geophys Res Space Phys 119:10376–10383. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gu S-Y, Ruan H, Yang C-Y, Gan Q, Dou X, Wang N (2018) The morphology of the 6-day wave in both the neutral atmosphere and F region ionosphere under solar minimum conditions. J Geophy Res Space Phys 123:4232–4240. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ivanov-Kholodny GS, Nusinov AA (1979) Formation and dynamics of the daytime mid-latitude ionospheric E-layer [in Russian]. Transactions of IAG 37:128

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kelley MC (2009) The Earth’s ionosphere: Plasma physics and electrodynamics (International Geophysics Series), vol 43. Academic, San Diego, CA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  16. Laštovička J (1996) Similarities in the variability of the lower ionosphere and foF2 in the period range of 2–15 days. Adv Space Res 18(3):117–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-1177(95)00849-A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Laštovička J, Mlch P (1996) Solar cycle effects on oscillations in the period range of 2–20 days in the F region of the ionosphere. Ann Geofis 39:783–790. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-4018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Laštovička J, Križan Š, P., & Novotná, D. (2003) Persistence of the planetary wave type oscillations in foF2 over Europe. Ann Geophys 21:1543–1552. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-21-1543-2003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Laštovička J (2006) Forcing of the ionosphere by waves from below. J Atmos Solar Terr Phys 68(3–5):479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2005.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Laštovička J, Šauli P, Križan P (2006) Persistence of the planetary wave type oscillations in mid-latitude ionosphere. Annals Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liu HL, Talaat ER, Roble RG, Lieberman RS, Riggin DM, Yee JH (2004) The 65-day wave and its seasonal variability in the middle and upper atmosphere. J Geophys Res 109:D21112. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD004795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu HL, Wang W, Richmond AD, Roble RG (2010) Ionospheric variability due to planetary waves and tides for solar minimum conditions. J Geophys Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA015188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu L, Chen Y, Le H, Ning B, Wan W, Liu J, Hu L (2013) A case study of postmidnight enhancement in F-layer electron density over Sanya of China. J Geophys Res Space Phys 118:4640–4648. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Madden RA, Julian PA (1972) Further evidence of global-scale 5-day pressure waves. J Atmospheric Sci 29(8):1464–1469. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029%3C1464:FEOGSD%3E2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Meyer CK, Forbes JM (1997) A 65-day westward propagating planetary wave: Origin and characteristics. J Geophys Res 102(26):173–178. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JD01464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mikhailov AV (1983) Possible mechanism for the in-phase changes in the electron densities in the ionospheric E and F2 regions. Geomagn Aeron 23:455–458

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mikhailov AV, Depuev VH, Depueva AH (2007) Synchronous NmF2 and NmE daytime variations as a key to the mechanism of quiet-time F2-layer disturbances. Ann Geophys 25:483–493. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-25-483-2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mikhailov AV, Perrone L, Nusinov AA (2017) A mechanism of midlatitude noontime foE long-term variations inferred from European observations. J Geophys Res Space Physics 122:4466–4473. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA023909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Miyoshi Y (1999) Numerical simulation of the 5-day and 16-day waves in the mesopause region. Earth Planets Space 51:763–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nusinov AA (1988) Deterministic model of mid-latitude and equatorial E-layer (Description and comparative characteristics of the accuracy) [in Russian], Ionosph. Researches 44:94–97

    Google Scholar 

  31. Onohara AN, Batista IS, Takahashi H (2013) The ultra-fast Kelvin waves in the equatorial ionosphere: Observations and modeling. Annales Geophysique 31(2):209–215. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-31-209-2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pedatella NM, Liu HL, Hagan ME (2012) Day-to-day migrating and nonmigrating tidal variability due to the six-day planetary wave. J Geophys Res 117:A06301. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012ja017581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Reinisch BW et al (2009) New Digisonde for research and monitoring applications. Radio Sci. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008RS004115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Riggin DM, Liu HL, Lieberman RS, Roble RG, Russell JM III, Mertens CJ et al (2006) Observations of the 5-day wave in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. J Atmos Solar Terr Phys 68(3–5):323–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2005.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rishbeth H (1990) A greenhouse effect in the ionosphere? Planet Space Sci 38:945–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(90)90061-T

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rishbeth H (1998) How the thermospheric circulation affects the ionospheric F2 layer. J Atmos Solar Terr Phys 60:1385–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rodgers CD (1976) Evidence for the five-day wave in the upper stratosphere. J Atmospheric Sci 33:710–711. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1976)033%3c0710:EFTFDW%3e2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sridharan S, Tsuda T, Nakamura T, Horinouchi T (2008) The 5–8-day Kelvin and Rossby waves in the tropics as revealed by ground and satellite-based observations. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 86(1):43–55. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.86.43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Talaat ER, Yee JH, Zhu X (2001) Observations of the 65-day wave in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. J Geophys Res 106(20):715–723. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD900227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Talaat ER, Yee JH, Zhu X (2002) The 65-day wave in the tropical stratosphere and mesosphere. J Geophys Res 107(D12):4133. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD000822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Venne DE (1989) Normal-mode Rossby waves observed in the wavenumber 1–5 geopotential fields of the stratosphere and troposphere. J Atmospheric Sci 46:1042–1056. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1989)046%3c1042:NMRWOI%3e2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wu DL, Hays PB, Skinner WR (1994) Observations of the 5-day wave in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. Geophys Res Lett 21(24):2733–2736. https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL02660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Yamazaki Y (2018) Quasi-6-day wave effects on the equatorial ionization anomaly over a solar cycle. J Geophys Res Space Phys 123:9881–9892. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Yamazaki Y, Stolle C, Matzka J, Alken P (2018) Quasi-6-day wave modulation of the equatorial electrojet. J Geophys Res Physics Space Physics 123:4094–4109. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yamazaki Y, Matthias V, Miyoshi Y, Stolle C, Siddiqui T, Kervalishvili G, Laštovička J, Kozubek M, Ward W, Themens DR, Kristoffersen S, Alken P (2020) September 2019 Antarctic Sudden Stratospheric Warming: Quasi-6-Day Wave Burst and Ionospheric Effects. Geophys Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Yue J, Wang WB (2014) Changes of thermospheric composition and ionospheric density caused by quasi 2 day wave dissipation. J Geophysical Res Space Physics 119:2069–2078. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yue J, Wang WB, Ruan HB, Chang LC, Lei JH (2016) Impact of the interaction between the quasi two-day wave and tides on ionosphere and thermosphere. J Geophys Res Physics Space Physics 121:3555–3563. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhao B, Wan W, Liu L, Igarashi K, Nakamura M, Paxton LJ, Su SY, Li G, Ren Z (2008) Anomalous enhancement of ionospheric electron content in the Asian Australian region during a geomagnetically quiet day. J Geophys Res 113:A11302. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012987

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the use of ionosonde data from Digital Ionogram Data Base (DIDBase).

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC grant Nos. 41574146, 41774162, 42074187), the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No. 2018YFC1503506), the foundation of National Key Laboratory of Electromagnetic Environment (Grant No. 6142403180204), and by Excellent Youth Foundation of Hubei Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 2019CFA054).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

YL performed data processing and statistical analysis on Q6DW absolute amplitude in foE and foF2 and drafted the manuscript. GC, QT and ZW elaborated on the processing of foE and foF2 data and supervised all the work of CZ and YL. GC CZ and YL participated in the discussion and interpretation of the statistical results obtained. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chen Zhou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., Tang, Q., Chen, G. et al. Quasi-6-day wave effects in ionospheric E and F region during the recent solar maximum 2014–2015. Earth Planets Space 72, 190 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-020-01319-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Quasi-6-day wave
  • Absolute amplitude in foE and foF2
  • Thermosphere–ionosphere coupling