JGR Space Physics - 2023 - Rubtsov - Polarization and Spatial Distribution Features of Pc4 and Pc5 Waves in The

RESEARCH ARTICLE Polarization and Spatial Distribution Features of Pc4 and Pc5
10.1029/2023JA031674
Waves in the Magnetosphere
Key Points:
A. V. Rubtsov1 , M. Nosé2,3 , A. Matsuoka4 , I. Shinohara5 , and Y. Miyoshi2
• T ransverse waves are mostly mixed
polarized, without separate clusters of 1
Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics SB RAS, Irkutsk, Russia, 2Institute for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Nagoya
pure poloidal and toroidal waves
University, Nagoya, Japan, 3School of Data Science, Nagoya City University, Nagoya, Japan, 4Graduate School of Science,
• Toroidal waves are odd harmonics
of field line resonance, while Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, 5Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency,
poloidal waves are both odd and even Sagamihara, Japan
harmonics connected with the ion drift
• Compressional waves are concentrated
at the geomagnetic equator, with two Abstract Ultra-low frequency waves interact with different particle populations all over the magnetosphere.
essential maxima of the occurrence
rate in L-MLT distribution Some interaction mechanisms are associated with certain wave modes, but is it really so and what about waves
interaction between each other? We present a statistical analysis of Pc4 and Pc5 waves in the magnetosphere
of the Earth that were observed by Arase satellite from March 2017 to December 2020. These waves were
Supporting Information:
classified by polarization into toroidal, poloidal, and compressional waves. Toroidal and poloidal waves are
Supporting Information may be found in
the online version of this article. thought to be Alfvén waves that are eigenoscillations of Earth's magnetic field lines. The former are believed to
be generated by external sources, while the latter one—by internal sources. We compared spatial distribution
Correspondence to: features with well-known case studies to reveal their nature for all three polarizations. A high inclination of
A. V. Rubtsov, Arase orbit supported a wave field-aligned structure research. We found that toroidal waves are mostly odd
avrubtsov@iszf.irk.ru harmonics and poloidal waves are both even and odd harmonics of Alfvén waves, while compressional waves
were observed in a narrow equatorial region only. Different wave generation mechanisms that cause a clear
Citation: difference in spatial distributions of toroidal, poloidal, and compressional waves could excite a specific wave
Rubtsov, A. V., Nosé, M., Matsuoka, polarization. Surprisingly, the statistics of wave polarization has a normal distribution without separate clusters.
A., Shinohara, I., & Miyoshi, Y.
We suggest that polarization change and mode coupling processes make mixed polarization the most common
(2023). Polarization and spatial
distribution features of Pc4 and Pc5 type of polarization in the magnetosphere. This result raises the question of how the polarization change
waves in the magnetosphere. Journal of process affects wave-particle interactions responsible for energy transport throughout the magnetosphere.
Geophysical Research: Space Physics,
128, e2023JA031674. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2023JA031674
Plain Language Summary Energy transport in the magnetosphere of the Earth is a complex
process involving different populations of charged particles and electromagnetic waves. The waves classified
Received 7 MAY 2023 as Pc4 and Pc5 have a wavelength comparable to the size of the magnetosphere and are responsible for energy
Accepted 7 AUG 2023 transport on a large distance. We collected 46 months of Pc4 and Pc5 waves observations by Arase satellite
to find a dependence of wave parameters on excitation source. We divided waves in the data set by magnetic
Author Contributions: field variation direction into radial, azimuthal, and field-aligned waves. These three types of waves have
Conceptualization: A. V. Rubtsov different spatial distribution in both equatorial and meridional planes. We compared distribution features
Data curation: M. Nosé, A. Matsuoka, I.
Shinohara, Y. Miyoshi
with specific energy sources using well-known case studies. Surprisingly, wave polarization statistics did not
Formal analysis: A. V. Rubtsov reveal any separation of waves into clusters that could be associated with different sources or wave generation
Funding acquisition: A. V. Rubtsov mechanisms. This fact forces us to pay more attention to wave polarization change processes and to a coupling
Methodology: A. V. Rubtsov, M. Nosé
Software: A. V. Rubtsov
of waves with different polarization to reveal a correct mechanism of energy exchange between the waves and
Validation: A. V. Rubtsov, M. Nosé charged particles in the magnetosphere.
Visualization: A. V. Rubtsov
Writing – original draft: A. V. Rubtsov
Writing – review & editing: A. V.
Rubtsov, M. Nosé
1. Introduction
Magnetosphere of the Earth is a unique natural laboratory to study plasma processes in the magnetic field. Ultra-
low frequency (ULF) waves lying in a band from 1.7 mHz to 5 Hz are an important part of energy transport inside
the magnetosphere and energy transfer from the solar wind to the magnetosphere (Menk, 2011). ULF waves are
excited by many sources, like external pressure pulses or inner plasma instabilities (McPherron, 2005). Most of
the ULF waves are described in terms of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (Walker, 2019), while sometimes kinetic
approach is necessary (Crabtree & Chen, 2004; Hasegawa, 1969). Waves in ULF range are divided into two types:
continuous pulsations (Pc) and irregular pulsations (Pi) (Jacobs et al., 1964; Troitskaya & Gul'elmi, 1967). The
lowest frequency ULF waves, called Pc4 and Pc5, are of a special interest, because it corresponds to eigenos-
© 2023. American Geophysical Union. cillations of field lines, that is, field line resonance (FLR), and its wavelength is comparable with the size of
All Rights Reserved. the magnetosphere. ULF waves interact with radiation belt electrons and ring current ions through different
RUBTSOV ET AL. 1 of 19
21699402, 2023, 10, Downloaded from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023JA031674 by Universiteitsbibliotheek Gent, Wiley Online Library on [01/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics 10.1029/2023JA031674
mechanisms, for example, drift and drift-bounce resonances (see Klimushkin et al., 2021; Zong, 2022, for recent
reviews).
Distribution of Pc4 (6.7–22 mHz) and Pc5 (1.7–6.7 mHz) waves occurrence rate was shown by many space-
craft previously (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Takahashi & Anderson, 1992). The waves were categorized into a
number of general types based on dominant direction of oscillations, wave frequency, and localization in
space. Later, new statistical studies focused on some specific types or even subtypes, using data of newly
launched missions. Liu et al. (2009) analyzed poloidal and toroidal waves spatial distribution from Time
History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms (THEMIS; Angelopoulos, 2008) mission
measurements. Dai et al. (2015) focused on poloidal Pc4 wave properties observed by Van Allen Probes (Mauk
et al., 2013). Yamamoto et al. (2022) investigated multi-harmonic toroidal wave distribution dynamics and
harmonic structure using Arase satellite data (Miyoshi, Shinohara, Takashima, et al., 2018). We see a lack
of wave field-aligned structure analysis and statistical studies of compressional waves. ULF wave frequency
distribution studies are rare as well. Our paper is aimed to fill these gaps. Geomagnetic conditions and plas-
masphere boundary influence on spatial distribution of Pc4 and Pc5 waves is shown in a companion paper
(Rubtsov et al., 2023).
In the present study, we analyzed spatial distribution of ULF waves in Pc4 and Pc5 bands using three full
observations around the Earth during the solar minimum. A clear difference in spatial distribution of toroidal,
poloidal, and compressional waves led us to look for separate clusters of waves with different polarization,
that may be associated with specific excitation mechanisms. It is believed that toroidal waves are generated
by external sources, and poloidal waves—by internal sources (e.g., Glassmeier, 1995). Moreover, waves of
different polarization interact with different particle populations or through different mechanisms. Surpris-
ingly, we found no clear separation of waves according to its polarization. This result contradicts the previ-
ous conception and shows that real wave-particle interactions may be more complex than it was previously
thought.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we describe the data used in the study. Section 3 and Appendix A
contain details of the wave selection process. Spatial distributions and polarization analysis are presented in
Section 4. Section 5 discusses possible caveats and compares our results with previous studies. We summarize
our findings in Section 6.
2. Data
In this study, we used Arase satellite data from March 2017 to December 2020 (Miyoshi, Shinohara, Takashima,
et al., 2018). We utilized McIlwain parameter L (McIlwain, 1961), Magnetic Local Time (MLT), and Magnetic
Latitude (MLAT) to specify the spacecraft position. The Arase completed three full observations of all MLTs
during those 46 months. High inclination orbit of Arase, up to MLAT = 40°, leads to coverage of L-shells
higher than 10, while its apogee geocentric distance is ∼6 RE. We utilized 8 s spin-averaged magnetic field data
(Matsuoka, Teramoto, Nomura, et al., 2018) to identify wave events in all three directions: azimuthal, radial, and
field-aligned. We used OMNIWeb database that includes 1 min solar wind (SW) and interplanetary magnetic
field (IMF) data. The SYM-H and SME indices were provided by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism,
Kyoto, and the SuperMAG collaboration, respectively.
2.1. Coordinate System Transformation
It is convenient to use a mean field-aligned coordinate system for ULF wave analysis. This system consists of
three axes: along the background magnetic field, in radially outward, and azimuthally eastward directions. The
background magnetic field is determined by moving average of the magnetic field data with a 10-min window.
Standing Alfvén waves often correspond to the observed magnetic field oscillations in radial direction (poloi-
dal waves) and azimuthal direction (toroidal waves) (Walker, 2019). Oscillations along a field line are usually
described in terms of kinetic theory as drift-compressional (DCM) or drift-mirror mode (DMM) (Chelpanov
et al., 2016; Rubtsov et al., 2018; Soto-Chavez et al., 2019). In real observations, all magnetic field components
oscillate together, leading to mixed polarization (Agapitov & Cheremnykh, 2011; Leonovich et al., 2015; Mager
et al., 2015).
Figure 1. Dwelling time of the Arase from 13 March 2017 to 31 December 2020 in (a) L-MLT (equatorial) plane and L-MLAT (meridional) plane divided into four
sectors: (b) day, MLT = 9–15 hr; (c) night, MLT = 21–3 hr; (d) dawn, MLT = 3–9 hr; and (e) dusk, MLT = 15–21 hr.
2.2. Equatorial and Meridional Distributions
We used L, MLT, and MLAT to present spatial distribution of ULF wave occurrence rate. L-MLT diagrams
show an equatorial distribution, and were used in many previous studies (Anderson, 1993; Dai et al., 2015; Liu
et al., 2009; Yamamoto et al., 2022). A high inclination of Arase orbit enhances our study by adding meridional
distributions (L-MLAT). Thus, we may reveal a general harmonic structure of magnetic field variations along a
field line: odd wave harmonics have a node at the geomagnetic equator, while even harmonics have an antinode.
From previous studies, we know that odd/even harmonics may be localized in different MLTs (Anderson
et al., 1990; Takahashi & Anderson, 1992). We obtained L-MLAT distributions for four MLT sectors: dawn
(MLT = 3–9 hr), day (9–15 hr), dusk (15–21 hr), and night (21–3 hr). From Figure 1, we see that the equatorial
distribution of Arase dwelling time is almost uniform, while meridional distributions have north-south asymme-
try. For the ULF wave analysis, we limited L-shell to be 4–10. The lower limit excludes the inner plasmasphere,
where the spacecraft is close to the perigee and its speed is high. The upper limit is introduced to avoid magneto-
pause crossing. We used Shue et al. (1997) model to obtain the magnetopause location in this study. An average
distance from the Earth to the magnetopause at the subsolar point is 10.36 ± 0.21 RE.
3. Wave Selection Process

We obtained data set for the statistical analysis in the following manner: (a) identify the spacecraft pass in L > 4
area, (b) transform coordinates into field-aligned system and remove trend with 10-min moving average, (c)
detect peaks in power spectra in Pc4 and Pc5 bands for each magnetic field component, (d) keep events whose
amplitude is more than 0.25 nT for at least five wave periods, and (e) look for start and end timestamps of a wave
event. The last step was applied to retrieve the correct duration of each wave event. See Appendix A for details
of the selection process. Instrumental noise at 3 mHz was removed by excluding peaks at 3 ± 0.5 mHz frequency
range. Unfortunately, sometimes the noise spectral peak was wider than 1 mHz or its second harmonic at ∼6 mHz
appeared, so we visually inspected all the selected waves and manually removed such cases.
As a result, we obtained a list of wave events with the information about event duration, spacecraft position
during an observation, wave amplitude averaged over the interval of wave observation for all three magnetic
field components, and wave frequency. Thus, we can identify multi-harmonic waves (Li et al., 2021; Yamamoto
et al., 2022), coupling of Alfvén and compressional waves (Mager et al., 2015), and simultaneous observation of
different waves (Korotova et al., 2020). Comparing wave amplitudes among three components, we revealed the
dominating oscillation direction for each wave event, that is, the polarization of the wave. If the radial average
amplitude 〈br〉 is larger than two others, then we call such wave a poloidal. If the azimuthal average amplitude
〈ba〉 is the largest, it is a toroidal wave. And if field-aligned oscillations have the largest average amplitude 〈b‖〉,
we refer it as compressional wave.
An independent wave selection for each magnetic field component opens a way to identify polarization change
events, for example, from toroidal to poloidal and vice versa. There are very few reports of such observations
(Leonovich et al., 2015; Sarris, Wright, & Li, 2009; Wei et al., 2019; Zolotukhina et al., 2008), while theory says
it must be a common feature (Klimushkin et al., 1995; Leonovich & Mazur, 1993). We will leave the analysis of
such events for the future study with this data set.
Some non-quasi-sinusoidal perturbations may occur in 1.7–22 mHz frequency bands, for example, Pi2 pulsa-
tions or substorm compressional pulses, that cannot be classified as Pc4 and Pc5 waves. One may exclude them
suggesting that Pi2 and compressional pulses have a sudden increase of magnetic field first, and then wave
amplitude gradually decreases, while a quasi-sinusoidal pulsation amplitude increases during a few first periods
at least. But a quasi-periodic sequence of pulses looks the same as a multi-harmonic quasi-sinusoidal wave.
Moreover, short-lived ULF waves induced by interplanetary shock are excluded as well by that condition. We
keep in mind this caveat of the data set for the future harmonic analysis.
4. Results
We found 12,977 wave events in total, counting different harmonics of a single wave separately, or 5,585 waves
if we merge waves of the same polarization observed at the same time interval but with different frequencies into
one event. Wave duration varies from a few minutes to several hours. All the waves were classified according
to a magnetic field oscillation component with the largest average amplitude during a wave event into toroidal,
poloidal, and compressional waves. Most of the detected waves were identified as toroidal, while compressional
waves were very rare. The dominance of toroidal waves may be caused by multi-harmonic waves that are common
in observations (Takahashi & Denton, 2007; Yamamoto et al., 2022), while poloidal and compressional waves
usually have a single harmonic (Takahashi & McPherron, 1984).
We calculate the occurrence rate as a ratio of wave observation time to dwelling time in a mesh which is 1
RE × 1 hr and 1 RE × 10° in L-MLT and L-MLAT planes, respectively. For occurrence rate plots, we consider
multi-harmonic waves as a single wave. We use SW velocity VSW, IMF Bz, and Parker spiral angle ϕ = arctan(By/
Bx) (IMF in GSM coordinates) to understand external conditions during a wave observation. Each event is
characterized by average values of these parameters during an observation. Parker spiral ordinary direction is
ϕ0 = 135°, and consequently, orthogonal to ϕ0 direction ϕ = 45° should be a local minimum of the distribution
(Troitskaya et al., 1971). Earth-Sun direction corresponds to ϕ = 0°. We binned ϕ distribution according to an
average MLT during a wave observation to reveal an influence of the IMF direction, parallel ϕ‖ or perpendic-
ular ϕ⊥ to the tangential vector to the magnetopause. We calculated ϕ‖ and ϕ⊥ for each MLT hour using Shue
et al. (1997) magnetopause model.
The distribution of geomagnetic indices SYM-H and SME averaged over a wave observation time is presented
as well. We set two limits for geomagnetically quiet conditions: SME <100 nT, and |SYM-H| < 30 nT (Gonzalez
et al., 1994). The former condition excludes any substorm activity, and the latter one excludes magnetic storms
only, while isolated substorms are allowed.
Spatial distribution, external parameters' statistics, and wave frequency distribution of toroidal, poloidal, and
compressional waves are shown and analyzed in the following subsections, while polarization features of the
collected waves are described in Section 4.4.
4.1. Toroidal Waves
Toroidal waves have the highest occurrence rate. Arase observed them mostly at pre-midnight and dawn
sectors, at L > 7, where the satellite reaches high latitudes (Figure 2). This behavior points to odd modes
to be the most common, as they have a node of the magnetic field perturbation ba at the equator (Takahashi
et al., 2020).
Figure 2. The occurrence rate of Pc4 and Pc5 toroidal waves, 〈ba〉 > 〈br〉, 〈b‖〉, in (a) L-MLT (equatorial) plane and L-MLAT (meridional) plane divided into four
sectors: (b) day, MLT = 9–15 hr; (c) night, MLT = 21–3 hr; (d) dawn, MLT = 3–9 hr; and (e) dusk, MLT = 15–21 hr. Distribution of average geomagnetic indices,
solar wind (SW), and interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) parameters during wave observations. (f) IMF Bz versus SW velocity VSW. (g) SYM-H index versus SME
index. Black dashed line denotes SME = 100 nT, and red dashed lines are SYM-H = ±30 nT. (h) Parker spiral angle ϕ = arctan(By/Bx) binned according to average
MLT during a wave observation. The black line is direction tangent to the magnetopause ϕ‖, while the red lines denote direction perpendicular to the magnetopause ϕ⊥.
Magnetopause location is calculated by Shue et al. (1997) model.
Dayside toroidal waves are believed to be excited by external sources from the solar wind. This statement is
supported by the fact that toroidal waves occur more often at higher L-shells, closer to the magnetopause. There
are a number of external sources of magnetospheric ULF waves, especially Pc5 waves, for example, waves in
solar wind (Potapov, 2013), foreshock transients (Wang et al., 2020, 2021), and magnetopause surface waves
(Agapitov et al., 2009; Kozyreva et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). IMF Bz distribution is almost
symmetrical about 0, |Bz| < 10 nT, and VSW is distributed from 250 to 750 km/s (Figure 2f). A high occurrence
rate on the nightside is probably connected with the large number of isolated substorms (SME >100 nT and
|SYM-H| < 30 nT; see Figure 2g), while there were a few magnetic storms. Substorm-injected particles cause
“bump-on-tail” or radial gradient instability, leading to ULF wave generation. However, toroidal waves at this
sector during quiet time were also reported (Takahashi et al., 2020).
Figure 2h shows that ϕ lies from 135° to 180° mostly, that is higher than ϕ0. There are two clear maxima at
the ϕ distribution at MLT = 8–14 hr and MLT = 18–24 hr for ϕ = 145–170°. The former maximum is smaller
and close to ϕ⊥, while the latter one surrounds ϕ‖. The ϕ ∼ ϕ⊥ maximum at MLT = 8–14 hr does not correlate
with the occurrence rate maximum at the dawn sector (MLT = 5–7 hr; see Figure 2a) and may results from
direct impact of some external source like SW pressure pulses. Most of the toroidal waves on the flanks, MLT
∼6 and 18 hr, are believed to be excited by the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability when SW flow is parallel to the
Figure 3. (a) Distribution of average wave frequency 〈fwave〉 of toroidal waves in L-MLT plane. L-MLT diagrams of the occurrence rate of toroidal waves in (b) Pc4 and
(c) Pc5 frequency bands. Gray color means no waves in a bin.
magnetopause (Johnson et al., 2014; Leonovich & Kozlov, 2019; Mann & Wright, 1999). Duskside maximum
ϕ ∼ ϕ‖ at Figure 2h probably occurs due to the same directions of IMF and solar wind flow. At the same time, this
co-directional configuration stabilizes the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at the dusk (Mishin, 1981; Nykyri, 2013),
leading to toroidal wave occurrence rate at the dawn higher than at the dusk. Likewise, this instability may be
an amplifier of waves excited on the dayside magnetopause (Archer et al., 2019, 2021; Klimushkin et al., 2019).
Yamamoto et al. (2022) analyzed solar wind control of dayside toroidal waves using Arase data and found that
monochromatic toroidal waves are observed several times more often than multi-harmonic waves. They showed
that multi-harmonic toroidal wave frequencies and occurrence rate correlate with VSW, SW pressure, and cone
angle.
Figure 3a shows an average wave frequency 〈fwave〉 distribution in L-MLT plane. Here, we used average spacecraft
location during a wave observation. For multi-harmonic waves, higher harmonics usually have shorter duration
and are observed near the apogee (e.g., Nosé et al., 2015; Takahashi et al., 2015), resulting in higher average
L-shell. This fact may explain high 〈fwave〉 at high L-shells in pre-midnight sector, where we observe a lot of
multi-harmonic waves due to high occurrence rate of Pc4 waves (Figure 3). In general, Figure 3a shows 〈fwave〉
increase toward the Earth that is a feature of FLR, while 〈fwave〉 averaged according to MLT is almost constant (see
Figure S1 in Supporting Information S1 and Takahashi et al., 2002). FLR nature of toroidal waves is confirmed
by comparison of 〈fwave〉 and fundamental mode eigenfrequency obtained for a dipole model (see Figure S2 in
Supporting Information S1). The best correlation is in day and dawn sectors, while in the dusk and night sectors,
both mean and standard error of fwave increase at high L-shells due to higher harmonics impact. Thus, we confirm
the common assumption that toroidal waves are FLR, which is used in magnetoseismology to estimate plasma
mass density (Menk & Waters, 2013; Takahashi & Denton, 2021). Global distribution of the toroidal wave occur-
rence rate seems to be similar to the Resonant Zone of the FLR (Wright et al., 2022). During a wave propagation
from the poloidal to the toroidal resonance surface through the Resonant Zone, wave amplitude increases toward
the toroidal surface (Klimushkin, 1998, 2000), and thus a wave is identified as toroidal rather than poloidal.
4.2. Poloidal Waves
Poloidal waves are concentrated at the ion drift path from the midnight to the noon, with a few local occurrence
rate maxima (Figure 4a). These waves can be excited by a moving source, for example, a substorm-injected cloud
of ions (Mager & Klimushkin, 2007, 2008). Eastward drifting ULF waves reported in previous studies were
observed at dawn and night sectors (James et al., 2013, 2016; Mikhailova et al., 2022; Yamamoto et al., 2019;
Zolotukhina et al., 2008), but its occurrence rate is small according to Figure 4a. Poloidal and toroidal waves
may be observed at the same time, but different energy sources result in different spatial distribution. SW param-
eters and geomagnetic indices' distribution for poloidal waves are similar to that of toroidal waves (Figures 4f
Figure 4. Same as Figure 2, but for poloidal waves, 〈br〉 > 〈ba〉, 〈b‖〉.
and 4g), but only poloidal waves were detected during strong northward IMF, Bz > 10 nT (Figure 4f). L-MLAT
distributions of poloidal waves in the day and dawn sectors shown in Figures 4b and 4d are more uniform than
those of toroidal waves (Figures 2b and 2d). This fact indicates both even and odd harmonics excitation, match-
ing previous observations of dayside second harmonic poloidal waves (Liu et al., 2013; Rubtsov et al., 2021;
Shi et al., 2018; Takahashi et al., 2018). The distribution of ϕ is more uniform than that for the toroidal waves
(Figure 4h). We found no maximum near ϕ‖, while the close to ϕ⊥ maximum is near the noon sector. We suggest
that the noon occurrence rate maximum may be enhanced by frontal interplanetary shocks (Oliveira et al., 2020;
Pilipenko et al., 2018; Zong et al., 2009). Pre-midnight number of events increases at ϕ = ϕ0 means no specific
dependence of wave generation on ϕ.
Let us note, that at Figures 4a and 4e, we excluded a couple of bins at the duskside at L = 9–10. The reason is an
anomalously high occurrence rate. We analyzed these bins and found that spacecraft dwelling time is very small
there (less than 20 hr), and concluded that it is a coincidence. However, one can find full poloidal wave occur-
rence rate distributions in Figure S3 of Supporting Information S1.
Poloidal waves are often associated with FLR, but with discrete frequency change with L-shell (Le et al., 2017, 2021;
Rubtsov et al., 2021). A 〈fwave〉 increase toward the Earth shown in Figure 5a is not as prominent as toroidal waves
(see Figure 3a) and occurs mostly at the dayside (see Figure S2 in Supporting Information S1). On the other
hand, we clearly see that 〈fwave〉 decreases from the midnight to the noon (see Figure S1 in Supporting Informa-
tion S1). This feature is also seen when Pc4 and Pc5 poloidal wave distributions are separated. Higher frequency
Pc4 waves occur mostly at the dusk and pre-midnight sectors, while lower frequency Pc5 waves appear at the
dayside (Figures 5b and 5c). As Pc5 band includes lower frequencies than Pc4 band, it is natural to associate the
Figure 5. Same as Figure 3, but for poloidal waves.
former with fundamental modes and the latter with second harmonics. In contrast with toroidal waves, excitation
of higher harmonics or multi-harmonic poloidal waves is very rare (Takahashi & McPherron, 1984). Modeling of
storm-time Pc5 waves revealed the same features: excitation of fundamental mode on the dayside, and excitation
of second harmonic on the duskside (Yamakawa et al., 2022). Figure 5b has one empty bin excluded due to the
anomalously high occurrence rate. The full distribution is shown in Figure S4 of Supporting Information S1.
Figure 6 shows occurrence rate distributions in L-MLAT plane for Pc4 and Pc5 poloidal waves divided into
four MLT sectors. Pc5 wave distributions have a clear minimum at the equator at all MLT sectors, which is in
agreement with the fundamental mode field-aligned structure that has a node at the equator. On the other hand,
field-aligned distributions of Pc4 waves are more uniform at day and dawn sectors, revealing second harmonics.
Nevertheless, we must note that poloidal wave harmonic structure should be investigated in each particular case.
4.3. Compressional Waves
Compressional waves have the lowest occurrence rate and are observed near the equator |MLAT| < 10° most
of the time under investigation. Narrow equatorial localization results in near zero occurrence rate at L > 8,
where Arase reaches |MLAT| > 30° (Figures 7a–7e). The occurrence rate increase at dusk-midnight sector prob-
ably corresponds to storm-time pulsations (Anderson, 1993), while pre-noon occurrence rate maximum may
result from some external sources, for example, SW pressure pulse or interplanetary shock (Eriksson et al., 2006;
Oliveira et al., 2020; Parkhomov et al., 1998; Zong, 2022). This conclusion is supported by the ϕ distribution
that has a single maximum at the pre-noon sector near ϕ = ϕ⊥ (Figure 7h). SYM-H and SME distribution during
compressional wave observations is almost similar to toroidal and poloidal waves (Figure 7g), while Figure 7f
shows mostly southward IMF Bz for them.
The shock-induced nature of pre-noon compressional waves is in agreement with Pc5 waves' occurrence rate
maximum at the same sector (Figure 8c). High-frequency compressional waves on the nightside can be related to
substorm compressional pulses (Figure 8a).
Among others, we want to mention three possible modes of observed compressional waves. First, some compres-
sional waves in the data set can be poloidal waves with compressional components. Near the equator, where odd
transverse magnetic field variations have a node and field-aligned variations have an antinode, the compres-
sional component becomes the largest. Second and third, there are DMM and DCM obtained from kinetic theory
(Takahashi et al., 2022). Chelpanov et al. (2018) used ground-based Ekaterinburg decameter radar (Berngardt
et al., 2020) to analyze Pc5 waves frequency properties and found that the significant number of detected waves
cannot be attributed to Alfvén waves, and DMM or DCM is the most probable interpretation. Researchers often
interpret observed compressional wave as DMM, but it needs a huge plasma pressure anisotropy (Soto-Chavez
et al., 2019; Zhu & Kivelson, 1994). In the statistical study for possible DMM localization in the magnetosphere,
Figure 6. L-MLAT diagrams of poloidal waves occurrence rate in (a)–(d) Pc4 and (e)–(h) Pc5 bands in 4 MLT sectors: (a, e)
day, (b, f) night, (c, g) dawn, and (d, h) dusk. The occurrence rate is color-coded for each MLT sector separately.
Cooper et al. (2021) utilized Van Allen Probes data and found dusk-midnight sector and L > 4 to be the most
favorable for DMM excitation. However, compressional waves are observed even during small pressure aniso-
tropy conditions, and such cases were attributed to DCM (Chelpanov et al., 2016; Rubtsov et al., 2018; Mager
et al., 2019). We need to emphasize that all three described compressional wave types have narrow equatorial
localization and meet the spatial distribution shown in Figure 7.
4.4. Polarization Features
Different spatial distribution of toroidal, poloidal, and compressional waves results from different excitation
mechanisms and energy sources for each kind of wave, as it was shown by many case studies. Thus, it is natural
to suggest that these mechanisms and sources excite waves of a certain polarization. To describe all possible
polarizations, one needs to choose two amplitude ratios between three components. In Figure 9 we chose a ratio
of 〈b‖〉/〈br〉 and a ratio of 〈b‖〉/〈ba〉 in vertical and horizontal axes, respectively. Thus, this two-dimensional plot
is divided into three sectors according to three basic wave polarizations. Figure 9a is a schematic illustration of
this plot that helps to understand the statistical distribution at Figure 9b.
From Figure 9b, we clearly see that most of the observed waves are toroidal with significant poloidal component.
The core of the distribution is placed along the 〈br〉/〈ba〉 = 1 line with a small shift to toroidal area (Figures 9b
and 9c). Interestingly, we found just a few pure toroidal and poloidal waves that are usually thought to be independ-
ent due to different generation mechanisms: external and internal, respectively (Glassmeier, 1995). This result
may be explained if one suggests the polarization change from poloidal to toroidal and vice versa is common.
10 of 19
10.1029/2023JA031674
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics
Figure 7. Same as Figure 2, but for compressional waves, 〈b‖〉 > 〈br〉, 〈ba〉. Gray bins have zero occurrence rate.
Figure 8. Same as Figure 3, but for compressional waves.
RUBTSOV ET AL.
Figure 9. Wave polarization statistics. (a) Schematic illustration of the plot. (b) Statistics for all the waves in the data set. Field-aligned to radial magnetic field
oscillation averaged amplitudes ratio 〈b‖〉/〈ba〉 versus field-aligned to azimuthal magnetic field oscillation averaged amplitudes ratio 〈b‖〉/〈br〉 in logarithmic scale. The
top histogram shows a distribution of 〈b‖〉/〈ba〉 values. The right histogram shows a distribution of 〈b‖〉/〈br〉 values. Magenta dashed line denotes mixed polarization
transverse waves, 〈br〉/〈ba〉 = 1. Black color denotes no wave events with corresponding ratios in the data set. Panels (c) and (d) show a distribution of transverse
components' ratio 〈br〉/〈ba〉 for transverse and compressional waves, respectively.
In this case, externally excited toroidal waves transform into poloidal waves, and internally generated poloidal
waves become toroidal ones (Elsden & Wright, 2020; Mager & Klimushkin, 2021). The spacecraft observes these
transformations at different stages and the average result is a normal distribution near 〈br〉/〈ba〉 = 1 due to a large
statistics. A small shift of the distribution to toroidal waves may be explained by wave amplitude increase during
a wave propagation from poloidal to toroidal resonance surface (Klimushkin, 1998, 2000).
A transverse component of a compressional wave is more often poloidal than toroidal, as shown in Figure 9d. It
may be caused by a wrong classification of waves near the equator where br has a node, while b‖ has an antinode,
as we discussed in Section 4.3. The true nature of an observed wave can be revealed by calculation of Alfvén or
DCM/DMM eigenfrequency for each particular case that is out of the scope of the present paper.
Likewise, a transverse component is more poloidal than toroidal at day and dawn MLT sectors for both transverse
and compressional waves. Figure S5 in Supporting Information S1 shows the distribution of 〈br〉/〈ba〉 for four
MLT sectors. The reported results of the polarization analysis should be analyzed from a theoretical point of view
in future studies.
5. Discussion
5.1. Caveats of Wave Selection Process
Some caveats of the wave selection process were discussed in Section 3, but there are a couple of possible errors
in the wave polarization identification. First, when the spacecraft observes a wave near a node of transverse
wave, it may be identified as a compressional wave. Transverse magnetic field components are depressed near
the node, while compressional component has an antinode resulting in 〈b‖〉 > 〈br〉, 〈ba〉 during the observation.
Second, coupled Alfvén-compressional mode has a mixed polarization, and may be attributed to poloidal or
compressional waves, depending on the spacecraft orbit during an observation (Klimushkin et al., 2012; Mager
et al., 2015; Mager & Klimushkin, 2017). Third, wave polarization may change in space and in time during a
single observation. Thus, polarization change events can be identified as poloidal or toroidal waves, depending
on the change phase observed by the spacecraft. To reveal an actual nature of wave, each event has to be analyzed
in details.
5.2. Polarization and Spatial Distributions
Transverse waves can be detected everywhere in the magnetosphere and often correspond to FLR (〈fwave〉
increases toward the Earth). Both external and internal sources of waves have its own signatures in the distri-
butions, resulting in difference between poloidal and toroidal wave occurrence rates. We clearly see that odd
harmonics dominate in toroidal spectra, while poloidal waves at day and dawn sectors have a comparable number
of odd and even harmonics. Likewise, poloidal waves are revealed to have a 〈fwave〉 dependence on MLT. At the
same time, compressional waves were found to be very rare and concentrated near the geomagnetic equator. A
narrow pre-noon maximum of compressional waves occurrence rate results from some external source connected
with the Parker spiral direction, while the dusk-midnight compressional waves increase is thought to be related
to storm-time pulsations. Analysis of the polarization showed that most of the waves are transverse waves with
mixed polarization, and there are slightly more toroidal waves than poloidal. Surprisingly, pure poloidal or toroi-
dal waves are rare. We suggest that it may be caused by a polarization change feature when a spacecraft observes
a wave at different stages of polarization transformation. On the other hand, the distribution of compressional
waves' transverse components is shifted to poloidal waves. It may result from false compressional wave detection.
5.3. Comparison With Previous Studies
Spatial distributions presented here are in general agreement with previous statistical studies of Pc4 and Pc5
waves using spacecraft data, but differences also take place (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Dai et al., 2015; Lessard
et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2009; Nosé et al., 1998; Zhu & Kivelson, 1991). There are a few possible reasons for
different spatial distributions. First, wave selection procedure varies from study to study. Second, most of the
previously used satellites have near-equatorial orbits, |MLAT| < 20°. Third, in many studies, authors used just one
observation of all MLTs, and magnetic storms and substorms may distort them. Time interval of statistics collec-
tion can play a significant role, and distributions obtained during a solar cycle growth phase may be different from
ones obtained during a solar minimum. Long-term observations by Arase and other satellites will provide a better
understanding of ULF waves distribution in the magnetosphere. Moreover, joint observations at high latitudes
and near the equator will open a new way to understand the harmonic structure of waves.
Usually, ULF wave statistical studies use data sets of wave events (narrow peaks in spectra; e.g., Anderson
et al., 1990; Liu et al., 2009; Dai et al., 2015), but the other way is possible. Integrating spectra over the Pc4 and Pc5
frequency ranges, one obtains ULF wave power (Takahashi & Anderson, 1992; Takahashi & Ukhorskiy, 2007).
Spatial distributions of high ULF wave power and high ULF wave occurrence rate from the first method are simi-
lar. A greater difference may appear for compressional waves that are very rare (see Figure 7).
In a recent statistical study by Sarris et al. (2022), ULF wave power spatial distributions were analyzed using
Arase satellite and THEMIS probe A data from March 2017 to September 2020. That study has partial similarity
with the present paper: Arase data are used and intervals under investigation are overlapped. Some results are
the same for both studies, for example, transverse waves occur more often at higher latitudes, and compressional
waves concentrate near the magnetic equator. On the other hand, there are also differences; Sarris et al. (2022)
showed that L-MLT distributions of ULF wave power have prominent dayside and nightside maxima for poloi-
dal and compressional waves that have different properties from the ones found in the present study. Sarris
et al. (2022) did not investigate solar wind and geomagnetic conditions, although we studied their distributions
(Figures 2f–2h, 4f–4h, and 7f–7h). Moreover, in a companion paper (Rubtsov et al., 2023), we display ULF wave
distributions at different conditions and its dependence on the plasmapause location. Wave events method allowed
to investigate wave frequency distribution (see Figures 3, 5, and 8). This approach is necessary to compare the
statistics with case studies, where energy sources and generation mechanisms are investigated in details. We must
emphasize that both papers have different aims. According to Sarris et al. (2022), ULF wave power distribution
is important for radial diffusion coefficient calculation, associated with transport processes in radiation belts.
The idea of the present study is to use duration, amplitude, and frequency of a wave at the specific location to
understand its excitation mechanism and energy source.
6. Conclusions
In the present study, we utilized 46 months (March 2017 to December 2020) of Arase satellite magnetic field
data to investigate Pc4 and Pc5 wave polarization and spatial distribution. We used automatic wave selection and
found 12,977 wave events with duration, average amplitude, and wave frequency data. Obtained wave events were
divided into toroidal, poloidal, and compressional waves according to the magnetic field variation component
with the largest amplitude during a wave observation. We analyzed L-MLT and L-MLAT distributions of wave
occurrence rate and average wave frequency for each polarization separately. SYM-H and SME indices were used
to characterize geomagnetic conditions during wave observations. Solar wind and IMF distributions during wave
observations are presented as well. We found that our results match with previous case studies of different kind
of waves, and clearly identified key features of poloidal, toroidal, and compressional wave distributions. Even
though the obtained distributions are different for different polarization, we found no separate clusters in 〈b‖〉/〈ba〉
versus 〈b‖〉/〈br〉 diagram. The mixed polarization is the most common in observations, revealing the importance
of polarization change in time or in space and mode coupling. The obtained results should be analyzed from a
theoretical point of view in the future.
Appendix A: Selection Criteria

In the present study, we focused on a part of spectrum limited by Pc4 and Pc5 bands with a small extension
to higher frequencies (1.7–25 mHz) and set 0.25 mHz frequency step to resolve peaks in spectra. A frequency
criterion for the wave selection process was applied for each magnetic field variation component independently.
During a single pass for L > 4, a maximum at the interval fpeak ± 0.75 mHz is identified as a peak with a frequency
fpeak (measured in mHz), when its ratio to a minimum on the same interval is higher than 1.5 + 0.01fpeak. This
condition takes into account a general decrease of spectral power with frequency increase. We process the whole
frequency band under investigation, resulting in an opportunity for multiple peaks detection. This approach
allows us to identify multi-harmonic waves, waves with doubling frequency, and simultaneous occurrence of
different types of waves (e.g., transverse and compressional).
Figure A1 shows an example of the wave selection for a single orbit from 17:00 UT on 27 March 2017 to 01:00
UT on 28 March 2017. Figures A1a and A1b show a spacecraft trajectory in XY and XZ planes in SM coor-
dinates, with wave observation intervals shown by colored bold lines. Magnetic field oscillations in radial br,
azimuthal ba, and field-aligned b‖ directions are shown in Figures A1c–A1e for L > 4. Five wave frequency peaks
were identified in this case, fpeak = 2.1, 5.6, 10.2, 12.6, and 14.5 mHz. Three frequency peaks fpeak = 2.1, 5.6,
and 12.6 mHz were found in ba spectrum only. Oimatsu et al. (2018) presented fpeak = 2.1 mHz wave as a unique
Figure A1. Wave events selection example on 27–28 March 2017. Arase trajectory in (a) XZ and (b) XY planes in SM coordinates. Intervals with detected waves
are shown by colored bold lines. Magnetic field perturbations in (c) radial br, (d) azimuthal ba, and (e) field-aligned b‖ directions. Colored horizontal bars denote the
duration of waves. (f)–(h) Phase space density and (i)–(k) peak-to-peak amplitude App of band-pass-filtered br, ba, and b‖ data, respectively. Blue, green, brown, and red
colors denote fwave = 2.1, 5.6, 10.2, and 13.6 mHz, respectively. Colored areas are frequency ranges used for a band-pass filter. Horizontal dashed line is the amplitude
threshold. Shaded area shows a pulse, excluded after a visual inspection.
example of the drift-bounce resonance between fundamental mode toroidal wave and O + ions. Higher frequency
peaks fpeak = 10.2 and 14.5 mHz were identified in both br and ba spectra.
We exclude background noise, introducing an amplitude threshold to the wave selection process. First, we plot
upper and lower envelopes for oscillations at each fpeak found by the frequency criterion. For timestamps with
a cadence of half of the wave period, we calculate peak-to-peak amplitude App as a difference between upper
and lower envelopes. App must be higher than 0.5 nT (it corresponds to 0.25 nT wave amplitude) for at least five
wave periods in order to distinguish quasi-sinusoidal oscillations from pulses at the same frequency. We chose
App = 0.5 nT threshold empirically, after comparison with the background noise level and earlier case studies
(Mager, 2021; Mikhailova et al., 2022). Usually, quasi-sinusoidal waves have much more oscillation periods, but
the wave amplitude gradually increases at the beginning of the observation and gradually decreases at the end.
Thus, we roughly determine the start and end timestamps of a wave event as the first and the last time of contin-
uous satisfaction of the amplitude criterion, respectively. A few wave events with the same fpeak during a single
spacecraft pass can be detected. In Figure A1, we identified five wave events.
We merge wave events with the same magnetic field oscillation component and the wave frequency when the time
difference between the end time of the first event and the start time of the following event is less than 60 min.
It is useful for long-lasting waves detection, when beads are observed (e.g., Korotova et al., 2016; Rubtsov
et al., 2021).
As we chose a large part of the satellite pass for the spectral analysis, a discrete frequency change with L-shell
may lead to a number of close-spaced peaks in spectra. Frequency change with L-shell is a typical feature of FLR
(Glassmeier et al., 1999; Liu et al., 2013; Sarris, Liu, et al., 2009). We merge wave events of the same magnetic
field component and with overlapping time intervals which fpeak are less than 2 mHz apart. This value is enough
to consider two peaks close-spaced, and not to be nearby harmonics of a single wave. Two peaks fpeak = 12.6 and
14.5 mHz were merged to fwave = 13.6 mHz in Figure A1g (for other peaks fwave = fpeak).
When fwave for each wave event is found, we apply a band-pass filter for the band fwave ± 1 mHz and use the
amplitude criterion again. Now, we need to obtain an accurate start and end timestamps for a wave event. When
an interval satisfying App = 0.5 nT threshold is found (see Figures A1i–A1k), we set an initial start point and
then move toward earlier times as long as two conditions are satisfied: (a) App continuously decrease and (b)
App ≥ 0.1 nT. The same conditions are applied to identify the end time of an event at later times than an initial
end time. If any wave events are overlapped after this procedure, we merge them into one. A sudden pulse at
19:30–20:30 UT (shaded area in Figure A1) was excluded by visual inspection. Finally, there are five waves in
Figure A1 with fwave = 10.2 and 13.6 mHz at 17:54–18:30 UT, fwave = 2.1 mHz at 18:18–19:18 UT, and fwave = 5.6
and 10.2 mHz at 20:30–23:00 UT.
Data Availability Statement

Science data of the ERG (Arase) satellite were obtained from the ERG Science Center operated by ISAS/JAXA
and ISEE/Nagoya University (https://ergsc.isee.nagoya-u.ac.jp/index.shtml.en, Miyoshi, Hori, et al., 2018). The
present study analyzed MGF-L2 8 s spin-averaged data v03.04 (https://www.isee.nagoya-u.ac.jp/doi/10.34515/
DATA_ERG-06001.html, Matsuoka, Teramoto, Imajo, et al., 2018) and Orbit-L2 v03 data (https://www.isee.
nagoya-u.ac.jp/doi/10.34515/DATA_ERG-12000.html, Miyoshi, Shinohara, & Jun, 2018). The authors used
NASA/GSFC's Space Physics Data Facility's CDAWeb service, and OMNI data (https://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Acknowledgments
cgi-bin/eval2.cgi?dataset=OMNI_HRO_1MIN&index=sp_phys, Papitashvili & King, 2020). The SYM-H index
This study was supported by the Russian was provided by the World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto et al. (2022) (http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/
Science Foundation under Grant 21-72- wdc/Sec3.html). The SME index was provided by the SuperMAG collaboration (https://supermag.jhuapl.edu/
10139. AVR acknowledges Dmitri
Klimushkin for useful advice. The authors
info/?page=acknowledgement, Gjerloev, 2012).
acknowledge the Scientific Committee
on Solar-Terrestrial Physics (SCOSTEP)
for the SCOSTEP Visiting Scholar References
program and the Center for International
Collaborative Research (CICR), Institute Agapitov, A. V., & Cheremnykh, O. K. (2011). Polarization of ULF waves in the Earth’s magnetosphere. Kinematics and Physics of Celestial
for Space-Earth Environmental Research, Bodies, 27(3), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0884591311030020
Nagoya University that made this collab- Agapitov, O., Glassmeier, K.-H., Plaschke, F., Auster, H.-U., Constantinescu, D., Angelopoulos, V., et al. (2009). Surface waves and field line
oration real. resonances: A THEMIS case study. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(A1), A00C27. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013553
Anderson, B. J. (1993). Statistical studies of Pc3–5 pulsations and their relevance for possible source mechanisms of ULF waves. Annales
Geophysicae, 11, 128–143.
Anderson, B. J., Engebretson, M. J., Rounds, S. P., Zanetti, L. J., & Potemra, T. A. (1990). A statistical study of Pc 3-5 pulsations observed by
the AMPTE/CCE magnetic fields experiment. 1. Occurrence distributions. Journal of Geophysical Research, 95(A7), 10495–10523. https://
doi.org/10.1029/JA095iA07p10495
Angelopoulos, V. (2008). The THEMIS mission. Space Science Reviews, 141(1–4), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-008-9336-1
Archer, M. O., Hartinger, M. D., Plaschke, F., Southwood, D. J., & Rastaetter, L. (2021). Magnetopause ripples going against the flow form
azimuthally stationary surface waves. Nature Communications, 12(1), 5697. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-25923-7
Archer, M. O., Hietala, H., Hartinger, M. D., Plaschke, F., & Angelopoulos, V. (2019). Direct observations of a surface eigenmode of the dayside
magnetopause. Nature Communications, 10(1), 615. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-08134-5
Berngardt, O. I., Kurkin, V. I., Kushnarev, D. S., Grkovich, K. V., Fedorov, R. R., Orlov, A. I., & Kharchenko, V. V. (2020). ISTP SB RAS decam-
eter radars. Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 6(2), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-62202006
Chelpanov, M. A., Mager, O. V., Mager, P. N., Klimushkin, D. Y., & Berngardt, O. I. (2018). Properties of frequency distribution of Pc5-range
pulsations observed with the Ekaterinburg decameter radar in the nightside ionosphere. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics,
167, 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2017.12.002
Chelpanov, M. A., Mager, P. N., Klimushkin, D. Y., Berngardt, O. I., & Mager, O. V. (2016). Experimental evidence of drift compressional
waves in the magnetosphere: An Ekaterinburg coherent decameter radar case study. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121(2),
1315–1326. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA022155
Cooper, M. B., Gerrard, A. J., Lanzerotti, L. J., Soto-Chavez, A. R., Kim, H., Kuzichev, I. V., & Goodwin, L. V. (2021). Mirror instabilities in
the inner magnetosphere and their potential for localized ULF wave generation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126(2),
e2020JA028773. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028773
Crabtree, C., & Chen, L. (2004). Finite gyroradius theory of drift compressional modes. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(17), 17804. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020660
Dai, L., Takahashi, K., Lysak, R., Wang, C., Wygant, J. R., Kletzing, C., et al. (2015). Storm time occurrence and spatial distribution of Pc4 poloi-
dal ULF waves in the inner magnetosphere: A Van Allen Probes statistical study. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(6),
4748–4762. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021134
Elsden, T., & Wright, A. (2020). Evolution of high-m poloidal Alfvén waves in a dipole magnetic field. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
Physics, 125(8), e2020JA028187. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028187
Eriksson, P. T. I., Blomberg, L. G., Schaefer, S., & Glassmeier, K.-H. (2006). On the excitation of ULF waves by solar wind pressure enhance-
ments. Annales Geophysicae, 24(11), 3161–3172. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-24-3161-2006
Gjerloev, J. W. (2012). The SuperMAG data processing technique. Journal of Geophysical Research, 117(A9), A09213. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2012JA017683
Glassmeier, K.-H. (1995). ULF pulsations. In H. Volland (Ed.), Handbook of Atmospheric Electrodynamics (Vol. 2, pp. 463–502). CRC Press.
https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203713297
Glassmeier, K.-H., Othmer, C., Cramm, R., Stellmacher, M., & Engebretson, M. (1999). Magnetospheric field line resonance: A comparative
approach. Surveys in Geophysics, 20(1), 61–109. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006659717963
Gonzalez, W. D., Joselyn, J. A., Kamide, Y., Kroehl, H. W., Rostoker, G., Tsurutani, B. T., & Vasyliunas, V. M. (1994). What is a geomagnetic
storm? Journal of Geophysical Research, 99(A4), 5771–5792. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA02867
Hasegawa, A. (1969). Drift mirror instability of the magnetosphere. Physics of Fluids, 12, 2642–2650. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1692407
Jacobs, J. A., Kato, Y., Matsushita, S., & Troitskaya, V. A. (1964). Classification of geomagnetic micropulsations. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 69(1), 180–181. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ069i001p00180
James, M. K., Yeoman, T. K., Mager, P. N., & Klimushkin, D. Y. (2013). The spatio-temporal characteristics of ULF waves driven by substorm
injected particles. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118(4), 1737–1749. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50131
James, M. K., Yeoman, T. K., Mager, P. N., & Klimushkin, D. Y. (2016). Multiradar observations of substorm-driven ULF waves. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 121(6), 5213–5232. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA022102
Johnson, J. R., Wing, S., & Delamere, P. A. (2014). Kelvin Helmholtz instability in planetary magnetospheres. Space Science Reviews, 184(1–4),
1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-014-0085-z
Klimushkin, D. Y. (1998). Structure of small-scale standing azimuthal Alfvén waves interacting with high-energy particles in the magnetosphere.
Plasma Physics Reports, 24, 956–964.
Klimushkin, D. Y. (2000). The propagation of high-m Alfvén waves in the Earth’s magnetosphere and their interaction with high-energy particles.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 105(A10), 23303–23310. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA000396
Klimushkin, D. Y., Leonovich, A. S., & Mazur, V. A. (1995). On the propagation of transversally small-scale standing Alfvén waves
in a three-dimensionally inhomogeneous magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, 100(A6), 9527–9534. https://doi.
org/10.1029/94JA03233
Klimushkin, D. Y., Mager, P. N., Chelpanov, M. A., & Kostarev, D. V. (2021). Interaction of the long-period ULF waves and charged particle
in the magnetosphere: Theory and observations (overview). Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 7(4), 33–66. https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-74202105
Klimushkin, D. Y., Mager, P. N., & Pilipenko, V. A. (2012). On the ballooning instability of the coupled Alfvén and drift compressional modes.
Earth Planets and Space, 64(9), 777–781. https://doi.org/10.5047/eps.2012.04.002
Klimushkin, D. Y., Mager, P. N., Zong, Q., & Glassmeier, K.-H. (2019). Alfvén wave generation by a compact source moving on the magnet-
opause: Asymptotic solution. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124(4), 2720–2735. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025801
Korotova, G., Sibeck, D., Engebretson, M., Balikhin, M., Thaller, S., Kletzing, C., et al. (2020). Multipoint observations of compressional
Pc5 pulsations in the dayside magnetosphere and corresponding particle signatures. Annales Geophysicae, 38(6), 1267–1281. https://doi.
org/10.5194/angeo-38-1267-2020
Korotova, G., Sibeck, D., Engebretson, M., Wygant, J., Thaller, S., Spence, H., et al. (2016). Multipoint spacecraft observations of long-lasting
poloidal Pc4 pulsations in the dayside magnetosphere on 1-2 May 2014. Annales Geophysicae, 34(11), 985–998. https://doi.org/10.5194/
angeo-34-985-2016
Kozyreva, O., Pilipenko, V., Lorentzen, D., Baddeley, L., & Hartinger, M. (2019). Transient oscillations near the dayside open-closed
boundary: Evidence of magnetopause surface mode? Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124(11), 9058–9074. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2018JA025684
Le, G., Chi, P. J., Strangeway, R. J., Russell, C. T., Slavin, J. A., Anderson, B., et al. (2021). MMS observations of field line resonances under disturbed
solar wind conditions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126(5), e2020JA028936. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028936
Le, G., Chi, P. J., Strangeway, R. J., Russell, C. T., Slavin, J. A., Takahashi, K., et al. (2017). Global observations of magnetospheric high-m poloi-
dal waves during the 22 June 2015 magnetic storm. Geophysical Research Letters, 44(8), 3456–3464. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073048
Leonovich, A. S., Klimushkin, D. Y., & Mager, P. N. (2015). Experimental evidence for the existence of monochromatic transverse small-scale
standing Alfvén waves with spatially dependent polarization. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(7), 5443–5454. https://
doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021044
Leonovich, A. S., & Kozlov, D. A. (2019). Kelvin-Helmholtz instability in a dipole magnetosphere: The magnetopause as a tangential discontinu-
ity. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 124(10), 7936–7953. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026842
Leonovich, A. S., & Mazur, V. A. (1993). A theory of transverse small-scale standing Alfvén waves in an axially symmetric magnetosphere.
Planetary and Space Science, 41(9), 697–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(93)90055-7
Lessard, M. R., Hudson, M. K., & Lühr, H. (1999). A statistical study of Pc 3–Pc 5 magnetic pulsations observed by the AMPTE/Ion Release
Module satellite. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(A3), 4523–4538. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JA900116
Li, L., Zhou, X.-Z., Zong, Q.-G., Chen, X.-R., Liu, Y., Hao, Y.-X., et al. (2021). Origin of frequency-doubling and shoulder-like magnetic pulsa-
tions in ULF waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(23), e2021GL096532. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096532
Liu, W., Cao, J. B., Li, X., Sarris, T. E., Zong, Q.-G., Hartinger, M., et al. (2013). Poloidal ULF wave observed in the plasmasphere boundary
layer. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 118(7), 4298–4307. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50427
Liu, W., Sarris, T. E., Li, X., Elkington, S. R., Ergun, R., Angelopoulos, V., et al. (2009). Electric and magnetic field observations
of Pc4 and Pc5 pulsations in the inner magnetosphere: A statistical study. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(A12), A12206.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014243
Mager, O. V. (2021). Alfvén waves generated through the drift-bounce resonant instability in the ring current: A THEMIS multi-spacecraft case
study. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126(11), e2021JA029241. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029241
Mager, O. V., Chelpanov, M. A., Mager, P. N., Klimushkin, D. Y., & Berngardt, O. I. (2019). Conjugate ionosphere-magnetosphere observations
of a sub-Alfvénic compressional intermediate-m wave: A case study using EKB radar and Van Allen Probes. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Space Physics, 124(5), 3276–3290. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA026541
Mager, P. N., Berngardt, O. I., Klimushkin, D. Y., Zolotukhina, N. A., & Mager, O. V. (2015). First results of the high-resolution multibeam ULF
wave experiment at the Ekaterinburg SuperDARN radar: Ionospheric signatures of coupled poloidal Alfvén and drift-compressional modes.
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 130–131, 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2015.05.017
Mager, P. N., & Klimushkin, D. Y. (2007). Generation of Alfvén waves by a plasma inhomogeneity moving in the Earth’s Magnetosphere. Plasma
Physics Reports, 33(5), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1063780X07050042
Mager, P. N., & Klimushkin, D. Y. (2008). Alfvén ship waves: High-m ULF pulsations in the magnetosphere, generated by a moving plasma
inhomogeneity. Annales Geophysicae, 26(6), 1653–1663. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-26-1653-2008
Mager, P. N., & Klimushkin, D. Y. (2017). Non-resonant instability of coupled Alfvén and drift compressional modes in magnetospheric plasma.
Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 59(9), 095005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6587/aa790c
Mager, P. N., & Klimushkin, D. Y. (2021). The field line resonance in the three-dimensionally inhomogeneous magnetosphere: Principal features.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 126(1), e2020JA028455. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028455
Mann, I. R., & Wright, A. N. (1999). Diagnosing the excitation mechanisms of Pc5 magnetospheric flank waveguide modes and FLRs. Geophys-
ical Research Letters, 26(16), 2609–2612. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL900573
Matsuoka, A., Teramoto, M., Imajo, S., Kurita, S., Miyoshi, Y., & Shinohara, I. (2018). Exploration of energization and Radiation in Geospace
(ERG) Magnetic Field Experiment (MGF) Level-2 spin-averaged magnetic field data [Dataset]. ERG Science Center. https://doi.org/10.34515/
DATA.ERG-06001
Matsuoka, A., Teramoto, M., Nomura, R., Nosé, M., Fujimoto, A., Tanaka, Y., et al. (2018). The ARASE (ERG) magnetic field investigation.
Earth Planets and Space, 70(1), 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0800-1
Mauk, B. H., Fox, N. J., Kanekal, S. G., Kessel, R. L., Sibeck, D. G., & Ukhorskiy, A. (2013). Science objectives and rationale for the Radiation
Belt Storm Probes mission. Space Science Reviews, 179(1–4), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-012-9908-y
McIlwain, C. E. (1961). Coordinates for mapping the distribution of magnetically trapped particles. Journal of Geophysical Research, 66(11),
3681–3691. https://doi.org/10.1029/JZ066i011p03681
McPherron, R. L. (2005). Magnetic pulsations: Their sources and relation to solar wind and geomagnetic activity. Surveys in Geophysics, 26(5),
545–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-005-1758-7
Menk, F. W. (2011). Magnetospheric ULF waves: A review. In W. Liu & M. Fujimoto (Eds.), The dynamic magnetosphere, IAGA Special Sopron
Book Series 3 (pp. 223–256). Springer Science+Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0501-2_13
Menk, F. W., & Waters, C. L. (2013). Magnetoseismology: Ground-based remote sensing of Earth’s magnetosphere. John Wiley and Sons. https://
doi.org/10.1002/9783527652051
Mikhailova, O. S., Smotrova, E. E., & Mager, P. N. (2022). Resonant generation of an Alfvén wave by a substorm injected electron cloud: A Van
Allen Probe case study. Geophysical Research Letters, 49(19), e2022GL100433. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100433
Mishin, V. V. (1981). On the MHD instability of the Earth’s magnetopause and its geophysical effects. Planetary and Space Science, 29(3),
359–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(81)90024-6
Miyoshi, Y., Hori, T., Shoji, M., Teramoto, M., Chang, T. F., Segawa, T., et al. (2018). The ERG Science Center. Earth Planets and Space, 70(1),
96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0867-8
Miyoshi, Y., Shinohara, I., & Jun, C.-W. (2018). Exploration of energization and Radiation in Geospace (ERG) Orbit Level-2 data [Dataset]. ERG
Science Center. https://doi.org/10.34515/DATA.ERG-12000
Miyoshi, Y., Shinohara, I., Takashima, T., Asamura, K., Higashio, N., Mitani, T., et al. (2018). Geospace exploration project ERG. Earth Planets
and Space, 70(1), 101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40623-018-0862-0
Nosé, M., Iyemori, T., Nakabe, S., Nagai, T., Matsumoto, H., & Goka, T. (1998). ULF pulsations observed by the ETS-VI satellite: Substorm
associated azimuthal Pc 4 pulsations on the nightside. Earth Planets and Space, 50(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352087
Nosé, M., Oimatsu, S., Keika, K., Kletzing, C. A., Kurth, W. S., De Pascuale, S., et al. (2015). Formation of the oxygen torus in the inner-
magnetosphere: Van Allen Probes observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(2), 1182–1196. https://doi.
org/10.1002/2014JA020593
Nykyri, K. (2013). Impact of MHD shock physics on magnetosheath asymmetry and Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics, 118(8), 5068–5081. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50499
Oimatsu, S., Nosé, M., Teramoto, M., Yamamoto, K., Matsuoka, A., Kasahara, S., et al. (2018). Drift-bounce resonance between Pc5 pulsa-
tions and ions at multiple energies in the nightside magnetosphere: Arase and MMS observations. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(15),
7277–7286. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078961
Oliveira, D. M., Hartinger, M. D., Xu, Z., Zesta, E., Pilipenko, V. A., Giles, B. L., & Silveira, M. V. D. (2020). Interplanetary shock impact
angles control magnetospheric ULF wave activity: Wave amplitude, frequency, and power spectra. Geophysical Research Letters, 47(24),
e2020GL090857. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090857
Papitashvili, N. E., & King, J. H. (2020). OMNI 1-min data set [Dataset]. NASA Space Physics Data Facility. https://doi.org/10.48322/45bb-8792
Parkhomov, V. A., Mishin, V. V., & Borovik, L. V. (1998). Long-period geomagnetic pulsations caused by the solar wind negative pressure
impulse on 22 March 1979 (CDAW-6). Annales Geophysicae, 16(2), 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00585-998-0134-6
Pilipenko, V. A., Bravo, M., Romanova, N. V., Kozyreva, O. V., Samsonov, S. N., & Sakharov, Y. A. (2018). Geomagnetic and ionospheric
responses to the interplanetary shock wave of March 17, 2015. Izvestiya, Physics of the Solid Earth, 54(5), 721–740. https://doi.org/10.1134/
S1069351318050129
Potapov, A. S. (2013). ULF wave activity in high-speed streams of the solar wind: Impact on the magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics, 118(10), 6465–6477. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JA019119
Rubtsov, A. V., Agapitov, O. V., Mager, P. N., Klimushkin, D. Y., Mager, O. V., Mozer, F. S., & Angelopoulos, V. (2018). Drift resonance of
compressional ULF waves and substorm-injected protons from multipoint THEMIS measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space
Physics, 123(11), 9406–9419. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025985
Rubtsov, A. V., Mikhailova, O. S., Mager, P. N., Klimushkin, D. Y., Ren, J., & Zong, Q.-G. (2021). Multi-spacecraft observation of the pre-substorm
long-lasting poloidal ULF wave. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(23), e2021GL096182. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL096182
Rubtsov, A. V., Nosé, M., Matsuoka, A., Kasahara, Y., Kumamoto, A., Tsuchiya, F., et al. (2023). Plasmasphere control of ULF wave distribution at
different geomagnetic conditions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 128, e2023JA031675. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JA031675
Sarris, T. E., Li, X., Zhao, H., Papadakis, K., Liu, W., Tu, W., et al. (2022). Distribution of ULF wave power in magnetic latitude and local
time using THEMIS and Arase measurements. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127(10), e2022JA030469. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2022JA030469
Sarris, T. E., Liu, W., Kabin, K., Li, X., Elkington, S. R., Ergun, R., et al. (2009). Characterization of ULF pulsations by THEMIS. Geophysical
Research Letters, 36(4), L04104. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036732
Sarris, T. E., Wright, A. N., & Li, X. (2009). Observations and analysis of Alfvén wave phase mixing in the Earth’s magnetosphere. Journal of
Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 114(A3), A03218. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013606
Shi, X., Baker, J. B. H., Ruohoniemi, J. M., Hartinger, M. D., Murphy, K. R., Rodriguez, J. V., et al. (2018). Long-lasting poloidal ULF waves
observed by multiple satellites and high-latitude SuperDARN radars. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123(10), 8422–8438.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026003
Shi, X., Hartinger, M. D., Baker, J. B. H., Ruohoniemi, J. M., Lin, D., Xu, Z., et al. (2020). Multipoint conjugate observations of dayside ULF
waves during an extended period of radial IMF. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125(11), e2020JA028364. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2020JA028364
Shue, J.-H., Chao, J. K., Fu, H. C., Russell, C. T., Song, P., Khurana, K. K., & Singer, H. J. (1997). A new functional form to study the solar
wind control of the magnetopause size and shape. Journal of Geophysical Research, 102(A5), 9497–9511. https://doi.org/10.1029/97JA00196
Soto-Chavez, A. R., Lanzerotti, L. J., Manweiler, J. W., Gerrard, A., Cohen, R., Xia, Z., et al. (2019). Observational evidence of the drift-mirror
plasma instability in Earth’s inner magnetosphere. Physics of Plasmas, 26(4), 042110. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5083629
Takahashi, K., & Anderson, B. J. (1992). Distribution of ULF energy (f < 80 mHz) in the inner magnetosphere: A statistical analysis of AMPTE
CCE magnetic field data. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97(A7), 10751–10773. https://doi.org/10.1029/92JA00328
Takahashi, K., Crabtree, C., Ukhorskiy, A. Y., Boyd, A., Denton, R. E., Turner, D., et al. (2022). Van Allen Probes observations of symmet-
ric stormtime compressional ULF waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127(2), e2021JA030115. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2021JA030115
Takahashi, K., & Denton, R. E. (2007). Magnetospheric seismology using multiharmonic toroidal waves observed at geosynchronous orbit.
Journal of Geophysical Research, 112(A5), A05204. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JA011709
Takahashi, K., & Denton, R. E. (2021). Magnetospheric mass density as determined by ULF wave analysis. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space
Sciences, 8, 708940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2021.708940
Takahashi, K., Denton, R. E., & Gallagher, D. (2002). Toroidal wave frequency at L = 6 − 10: Active Magnetospheric Particle Tracer Explorers/
CCE observations and comparison with theoretical model. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107(A2), SMP 2-1–SMP 2-14. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2001JA000197
Takahashi, K., Denton, R. E., Kurth, W., Kletzing, C., Wygant, J., Bonnell, J., et al. (2015). Externally driven plasmaspheric ULF waves observed
by the Van Allen Probes. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 120(1), 526–552. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020373
Takahashi, K., & McPherron, R. L. (1984). Standing hydromagnetic oscillations in the magnetosphere. Planetary and Space Science, 32(11),
1343–1359. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-0633(84)90078-3
Takahashi, K., Oimatsu, S., Nosé, M., Min, K., Claudepierre, S. G., Chan, A., et al. (2018). Van Allen Probes observations of second harmonic
poloidal standing Alfvén waves. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 123(1), 611–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JA024869
Takahashi, K., & Ukhorskiy, A. Y. (2007). Solar wind control of Pc5 pulsation power at geosynchronous orbit. Journal of Geophysical Research,
112(A11), A11205. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012483
Takahashi, K., Vellante, M., Del Corpo, A., Claudepierre, S. G., Kletzing, C., Wygant, J., & Koga, K. (2020). Multiharmonic toroidal standing
Alfvén waves in the midnight sector observed during a geomagnetically quiet period. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125(3),
e2019JA027370. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027370
Troitskaya, V. A., & Gul’elmi, A. V. (1967). Geomagnetic micropulsations and diagnostics of the magnetosphere. Space Science Reviews, 7(5–6),
689–768. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00542894
Troitskaya, V. A., Plyasova-Bakunina, T. A., & Gul’elmi, A. V. (1971). Relationship between Pc 2-4 pulsations and the interplanetary field.
Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 197(6), 1312–1314.
Walker, A. D. M. (2019). Magnetohydrodynamic waves in geospace: The theory of ULF waves and their interaction with energetic particles in
the solar–terrestrial environment (1st ed.). CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429093029
Wang, B., Liu, T., Nishimura, Y., Zhang, H., Hartinger, M., Shi, X., et al. (2020). Global propagation of magnetospheric Pc5 ULF waves driven
by foreshock transients. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 125(12), e2020JA028411. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028411
Wang, B., Zhang, H., Liu, Z., Liu, T., Li, X., & Angelopoulos, V. (2021). Energy modulations of magnetospheric ions induced by foreshock
transient-driven ultralow-frequency waves. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(10), e2021GL093913. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093913
Wei, C., Dai, L., Duan, S.-P., Wang, C., & Wang, Y.-X. (2019). Multiple satellites observation evidence: High-m Poloidal ULF waves with
time-varying polarization states. Earth and Planetary Physics, 3(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.26464/epp2019021
World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto, Imajo, S., Matsuoka, A., Toh, H., & Iyemori, T. (2022). Mid-latitude geomagnetic indices ASY and
SYM (ASY/SYM indices) [Dataset]. World Data Center for Geomagnetism, Kyoto. https://doi.org/10.14989/267216
Wright, A. N., Degeling, A. W., & Elsden, T. (2022). Resonance maps for 3D Alfvén waves in a compressed dipole field. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics, 127(4), e2022JA030294. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030294
Yamakawa, T., Seki, K., Amano, T., Miyoshi, Y., Takahashi, N., Nakamizo, A., & Yamamoto, K. (2022). Excitation of two types of storm-time
Pc5 ULF waves by ring current ions based on the magnetosphere-ionosphere coupled model. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics,
127(8), e2022JA030486. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030486
Yamamoto, K., Nosé, M., Keika, K., Hartley, D. P., Smith, C. W., MacDowall, R. J., et al. (2019). Eastward propagating second harmonic poloi-
dal waves triggered by temporary outward gradient of proton phase space density: Van Allen Probe A observation. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Space Physics, 124(12), 9904–9923. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027158
Yamamoto, K., Seki, K., Matsuoka, A., Imajo, S., Teramoto, M., Kitahara, M., et al. (2022). A statistical study of the solar wind dependence of
multi-harmonic toroidal ULF waves observed by the Arase satellite. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127(1), e2021JA029840.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029840
Zhang, W., Nishimura, Y., Wang, B., Hwang, K.-J., Hartinger, M. D., Donovan, E. F., et al. (2022). Identifying the structure and propagation
of dawnside Pc5 ULF waves using space-ground conjunctions. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 127(12), e2022JA030473.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA030473
Zhu, X., & Kivelson, M. G. (1991). Compressional ULF waves in the outer magnetosphere: 1. Statistical study. Journal of Geophysical Research,
96(A11), 19451–19467. https://doi.org/10.1029/91JA01860
Zhu, X., & Kivelson, M. G. (1994). Compressional ULF waves in the outer magnetosphere: 2. A case study of Pc 5 typewave activity. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 99(A1), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA02106
Zolotukhina, N. A., Mager, P. N., & Klimushkin, D. Y. (2008). Pc5 waves generated by substorm injection: A case study. Annales Geophysicae,
26(7), 2053–2059. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-26-2053-2008
Zong, Q.-G. (2022). Magnetospheric response to solar wind forcing: Ultra-low-frequency wave-particle interaction perspective. Annales
Geophysicae, 40(1), 121–150. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-40-121-2022
Zong, Q.-G., Zhou, X.-Z., Wang, Y. F., Li, X., Song, P., Baker, D. N., et al. (2009). Energetic electron response to ULF waves induced by inter-
planetary shocks in the outer radiation belt. Journal of Geophysical Research, 114(A10), A10204. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA014393
References From the Supporting Information

Cummings, W. D., O’Sullivan, R. J., & Coleman, P. J., Jr. (1969). Standing Alfvén waves in the magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research,
74(3), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA074i003p00778
Klimushkin, D. Y., Mager, P. N., & Glassmeier, K.-H. (2004). Toroidal and poloidal Alfvén waves with arbitrary azimuthal wave numbers in
a finite pressure plasma in the Earth’s magnetosphere. Annales Geophysicae, 22(1), 267–288. https://doi.org/10.5194/angeo-22-267-2004

JGR Space Physics - 2023 - Rubtsov - Polarization and Spatial Distribution Features of Pc4 and Pc5 Waves in The

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JGR Space Physics - 2023 - Rubtsov - Polarization and Spatial Distribution Features of Pc4 and Pc5 Waves in The

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH ARTICLE Polarization and Spatial Distribution Features of Pc4 and Pc5

2.1. Coordinate System Transformation

2.2. Equatorial and Meridional Distributions

3. Wave Selection Process

4.1. Toroidal Waves

4.2. Poloidal Waves

Figure 5. Same as Figure 3, but for poloidal waves.

4.3. Compressional Waves

4.4. Polarization Features

Figure 8. Same as Figure 3, but for compressional waves.

5.2. Polarization and Spatial Distributions

5.3. Comparison With Previous Studies

Appendix A: Selection Criteria

Data Availability Statement

References From the Supporting Information

You might also like