Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
www.elsevier.com/locate/asr

Possible seismo-ionospheric anomalies associated with

Mw > 5.0 earthquakes during 2000–2020 from GNSS TEC
Munawar Shah a,⇑, Ayesha Abbas b, Muhammad Arqim Adil a, Umar Ashraf c,
Jośe Francisco de Oliveira-Júnior d, M. Arslan Tariq e, Junaid Ahmed e,
Muhsan Ehsan f, Amjad Ali g
a
Department of Space Science, Space Education and GNSS Lab, National Center of GIS and Space Application, Institute of Space Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Department of Petroleum Engineering, NED University of Engineering and Technology, Karachi 75270, Pakistan
c
Institute for Ecological Research and Pollution Control of Plateau Lakes, School of Ecology and Environmental Science, Yunnan University,
Kunming 650504, China
d
Institute of Atmospheric Sciences (ICAT), Federal University of Alagoas (UFAL), 57072-260, Maceió, Alagoas, Brazil
e
Centre for Earthquake Studies, National Centre for Physics, Islamabad, Pakistan
f
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan
g
School of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China

Received 18 January 2022; received in revised form 7 April 2022; accepted 8 April 2022

Abstract

The recent advances in space-based ionosphere measurements provide more detailed information about transient ionospheric anoma-
lies associated with earthquakes (EQs). In this paper, we study the possible relation of EQs and ionospheric anomalies in a statistical
analysis by analyzing 534 EQs of Mw > 5.0 during 2000–2020 from Vertical Total Electron Content (VTEC) acquired from the Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) of International GNSS Services (IGS) network. The selection criteria of these EQs was mainly sub-
jected to two conditions: (1) at least three or more GNSS stations around the Dobrovolsky region were present, (2) the EQs occurred
during quiet geomagnetic activity (Kp < 3, Dst
-20nT). Particularly, we performed a statistical analysis on the basis of the median and
interquartile range (IQR) over VTEC for each EQ, and the positive/negative anomalies were analyzed in the form of cumulative count
for 20 days prior and after the mainshock day. Moreover, this study demonstrates that EQ induced VTEC anomalies occurred more
frequently with 3 or more GNSS stations around the epicenter in Dobrovolsky’s region within a 5–10-day window before the EQs. Fur-
thermore, the anomalies with a low deviation also initiated after the mainshock day within 5–10-day window. On the other hand, the
deviations are more clear for Mw > 6.0 EQs, where positive anomalies were observed after excluding false anomalies in the corresponding
IGS stations, showing a higher percentage of positive than negative anomalies and also more positive (negative) anomalies occur in solar
maximum (minimum) years of the solar cycles 23 and 24. The false anomalies were the ionospheric perturbations associated with geo-
magnetic storms (Kp > 3) and VTEC values beyond upper/lower bounds outside the 5–10 days anomalous window. This statistical anal-
ysis assists to support the lithosphere and ionosphere coupling for future EQ ionospheric precursors.
Ó 2022 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ionosphere anomalies; GNSS-TEC; Earthquake precursors; Geomagnetic activities

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shahmunawar1@gmail.com (M. Shah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.04.025
0273-1177/Ó 2022 COSPAR. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: M. Shah, A. Abbas, M. A. Adil et al., Possible seismo-ionospheric anomalies associated with Mw > 5.0 earthquakes
during 2000–2020 from GNSS TEC, Advances in Space Research, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2022.04.025
M. Shah et al.
1. Introduction
The explanation of the physical phenomenon behind
seismic induced ionosphere precursors and their coupling
with EQs have been reported in different case studies
(e.g., Pulinets and Davidenko, 2014; De Santis et al.,
2019; Adil et al., 2021a; Shah et al., 2021a). Similarly, some
reports rigorously explained the lithosphere ionosphere
coupling within some days before large EQs using ground
and space-based measurements (Abbasi et al., 2021; Adil
et al., 2021b; Shah et al., 2020b). Moreover, Vertical Total
Electron Content (VTEC) from ground and satellite mea-
surements provided significant evidence to monitor the
ionospheric conditions over the epicenter of future EQs
during quiet geomagnetic activity (Shah et al., 2020c;
Shahzad et al., 2021; Tariq et al., 2021). On the other hand,
some studies actively reported ionosphere variations asso-
ciated with geomagnetic storms and even denied the exis-
tence of EQ induced ionosphere anomalies with TEC
(Tariq et al., 2020; Adil et al., 2021b; Timoçin et al.,
2021; Shah et al., 2021c; Calabia et al., 2022). They
explained that EQ forecasting is not possible with the cur-
rent cluster of ionosphere monitoring satellites. For exam-
ple, Afraimovich et al. (2004) showed that VTEC
anomalies before the October 16, 1999, Hector Mine EQ
was largely contributed by geomagnetic activity, rather
than seismically induced ionosphere perturbations.
Some reports have analyzed ionospheric VTEC anoma-
lies statistically for globally distributed EQs in order to
provide a substantial correlation to the lithosphere iono-
sphere coupling hypothesis (Shah and Jin, 2015; Shah
et al., 2019; Kiyani et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2021b). Addi-
tionally, Liu et al. (2004) examined significant decreases in
TEC anomalies within 5 days before
6.0 magnitude EQs
in the Taiwanese region during 1999–2002. Similarly, Kon
et al. (2011) reported intensified VTEC anomalies within 1–
5 days before Mw
6:0 EQs in Japan during a long term
analysis of 12 years (May 1998–May 2010). Moreover,
Liu et al. (2004) reported negative GPS TEC anomalies
associated with large magnitude EQs in China during
1998–2008 and provided a substantialy statistical correla-
tion of lithosphere with ionospheric anomalies. For Japa-
nese EQs, Shah et al. (2020) also reported integrated
anomalous patterns in the form of positive VTEC and crit-
ical frequency of F2 layer (foF2) perturbations within three
days before the mainshock; which were the results of the
anomalous lower atmosphere specifying the propagation
path of the ionospheric anomalies.
The existence of collocated and synchronized VTEC
anomalies over the epicenter have two different explana-
tions based on Radon gas emanation (Pulinets and
Davidenko, 2014, Hafeez et al., 2021) and in the form of
positive holes (p-holes) emission from stressed rocks
(Freund, 2002). Pulinets and Davidenko (2014) described
that the source of ionospheric anomalies is the emission
of Radon gas from the EQ epicentral region and associated
fault lineaments. During the EQ preparation period, the
2
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
emission of Radon from EQ regions generates rapid
motion of ions in the near atmosphere followed by the
propagation to the ionosphere via specific pathways. This
phenomenon leads to a thermal heating effect at the litho-
sphere atmosphere boundary over the epicenter. On the
other hand, Freund (2002) explained the concept of the
generation of p-holes due to tectonic stresses build up
inside the Earth during the EQ preparation period.
According to him, this process became more intensified
during the EQ preparation period towards a threshold per-
iod and ultimately leads to lithosphere-ionosphere coupling
after more emission of p-holes. As a result, air ionization
and recombination of ions occur in the lower atmosphere
and ionosphere, which affect the deviation of radio waves
during their passage through the ionosphere.
In this paper, we study the ionospheric variations using
GNSS-TEC from IGS stations in a statistical analysis for
their possible association with EQs. This study is different
in many aspects from the previous statistical studies of
Shah and Jin (2015) and Shah et al. (2020a). The main
aim is to study GNSS stations data for the long term of
2000–2020 but not the GIM-TEC data. Moreover, this
study includes deep analysis of positive and negative
anomalies, EQ associated anomalies during solar cycles
23 and 24, multiple GNSS stations anomalies, etc. In Sec-
tion 2, a brief method of data analysis, along with the
designed selection criteria for selected EQs is discussed.
Section 3 comprises results about the connection between
EQs and ionospheric anomalies. Finally, Sections 4 and 5
consist of a brief discussion and conclusions, respectively.
2. Data and methodology
In this paper, the ionospheric anomalies are investigated
before and after 534 EQs of Mw > 5.0 during 2000–2020 in
different parts of the world (Fig. 1). The EQs information
was retrieved from the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) via (https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/
search/). In Fig. 1, the EQs are classified through different
color, which is the representation of their magnitudes. To
explore the possible relation of EQ induced ionospheric
Fig. 1. The geographical locations of 534 EQs of Mw
5.0 occurred in
different parts of the world during 2000–2020. The different colors and
sizes of the circles denote different magnitude EQs.
M. Shah et al.
perturbations, we conducted our analysis during active
(Kp > 3; Dst < -20nT) and quiet (Kp < 3; Dst
-20nT)
geomagnetic storm days, and the anomalies are distributed
as (i) before excluding storm days and (ii) after excluding
storm days. Since the geomagnetic activities are the major
drivers of ionospheric variabilities; it is important to study
the geomagnetic storm time responses in the ionosphere.
For this purpose, the geomagnetic storm indices were
obtained from the International Services of Geomagnetic
Indices (https://isgi.unistra.fr/data_download.php). Fur-
thermore, this study includes multiple GNSS stations
within the EQ preparation zone for each EQ. The GNSS
stations data from the IGS network were obtained via
(https://www.ionolab.org/index.php?page=webtec&lan-
guage=en). The available IGS stations falling within the
EQ preparation zone were also included in this study
and, the mainshock breed zone was calculated from the
Dobrovolsky formula (Dobrovolsky et al., 1979). Also,
we separated the ionospheric anomalies of different EQs
having different GNSS stations within the Dobrovolsky
region.
R ¼ 10 0:43M
Where M is the magnitude of the EQ and R denotes the
radius of the critical region. Eq (1) shows that the EQ crit-
ical region is dependent on the magnitude of any event;
e.g., large magnitude EQs have large critical regions and
vice versa. Finally, after a meticulous analysis, we selected
534 EQs of Mw > 5.0 to investigate their relationship of
ionosphere anomalies and EQs.
The slant TEC (STEC) from IGS permanent stations
around the epicenter within the critical regions was esti-
mated by the total number of electrons in 1 m2 tube along
the ray path of the signal from the satellite to the receiver.
It is expressed in TEC units, where
1VTECU ¼ 1016 electrons=m2 (Roma-Dollase et al., 2018).
The STEC retrieved from dual-frequency GNSS receivers
was extracted using the following equations:
f 21 f 22
STEC ¼
 ðL1  L2 þ k1 ðN 1  N 2 Þ  k2 ðN 1  N 2 Þ þ eÞ
40:28 f 21 f 22
f 21 f 22
STEC ¼
 ðP 1  P 2  ðd 1  d 2 Þ þ eÞ
40:28 f 21 f 22
In the above Eqs, f 1 and f 2 are carrier phase frequen-
cies. P and L are the pseudo-range and carrier phase obser-
vations of the delay path, whereas, k, N, d, and e are
wavelength, ambiguity, pseudo-range, and random residual
of the GNSS signal along ray path, respectively. Moreover,
STEC was converted into VTEC using the following
equation.
   
1 R: sin Z
VTEC ¼ STEC: cos sin ð4Þ
RþH
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
Here, R and H are the radii of the Earth and the height
of the top ionospheric layer in atmospheric altitude, respec-
tively. Z is the elevation angle of the satellite for the iono-
sphere pierce point (Heki and Enomoto, 2013).
To identify the ionospheric anomalies associated with
Mw > 5.0, we study the ionospheric scintillation from more
than 100 dual-frequency GNSS receiver stations within the
respective epicentral zones. From all the GNSS stations,
daily TEC with 1-second resolution was analyzed statisti-
cally by the confidence bounds method. The confidence

bounds were obtained by the median (X ) and associated
interquartile range (IQR). For example, the confidence
bounds of the observed day were calculated from the med-
ian and IQR of 15 days before and 5 days after the
observed day. Then, the upper bound (UB) and the lower
bound (LB) were the following.

UB ¼ X þ1:5IQR ð5Þ

LB ¼ X 1:5IQR ð6Þ
Equations (5–6) show the implementation of the upper
and lower bounds on normal VTEC distribution. Thus,
ð1Þ
the VTEC values beyond confident bounds manifest abnor-
mality associated with EQs. Also, the recorded EQ anom-
aly occurs statistically within the range of 95% confidence
interval (Shah and Jin, 2015).
Another method, differential VTEC (DVTEC) was uti-
lized to quantify EQ induced ionosphere anomalies. Partic-
ularly, we calculate the difference between the observed
VTEC and the UB for detecting positive EQ-induced
VTEC enhancements. The observed VTEC (VTEC obs ) was
subtracted from the UB to get the deviation in VTEC from
the normal distribution, as shown below:
8
< VTEC obs  VEC UB
>
DVTEC ¼ 0 if VTECU < 0 ð7Þ
>
:
VTEC obs  VTEC LB
Moreover, the deviation from normal VTEC distribu-
tion for every GNSS station was estimated in percentage
deviation, cumulative count, and increase/decrease per-
centages for different classes of the EQs. In Eq (7), positive
ð2Þ ionosphere anomalies occur due to overlapping of original
VTEC over upper bound and similarly negative iono-
spheric anomalies are original VTEC beyond lower bound
ð3Þ
during the analysis of all the EQs.
3. Results
3.1. Ionospheric VTEC variations
In this paper, the ionospheric anomalies from GNSS
TEC were analyzed for Mw > 5.0 EQs registered during
2000–2020 in a statistical analysis for global events along
the major fault systems (Fig. 1). The ionospheric anomalies
associated with geomagnetic storms are also investigated in
this study and excluded, so that the ionospheric perturba-
3
M. Shah et al. Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. The upper panels (a-b) are from geomagnetic Dst and Kp indices. Panels (c-e) showed GNSS TEC along with a red line for EQs day for the two
sequential Russian EQs. Stations include PETS, MAG0, and STK2.

Fig. 3. The top three panels show the seismic and storm anomalies with maximum DTEC, whereas bottom panels show the percentage deviation of VTEC
for two Russian EQs.
4
M. Shah et al. Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx

tions with EQs are correlated clearly. Additionally, the
diurnal VTEC variations along with differential VTEC val-
ues are analyzed for all the EQs to integrate ionospheric
anomalies in the cumulative count.
In this study, we include the case of December 2018
Russian sequential EQs (Mw 7.3 and its aftershock of Mw
6.2) in order to highlight the induced ionospheric perturba-
tions of high intensity during quiet storm days of Kp < 3
(Figs. 2-3). Some moderate geomagnetic storm (Kp = 3–
4) activities are likely to cause low magnitude TEC anoma-
lies but that was considered as storm time variations.
Another key point is that the storm was far beyond the
time window of 5 days before/after the mainshock of Mw
7.3. Thus, the main emphasis was on seismo ionospheric
anomalies within a 5–10 day window before the mainshock
day and the subsequent days. The deviation in VTEC was
1.7447, 1.4571, and 2.7757 VTECU (for Mw 7.3) respec-
tively, and 1.1710, 1.9099, and 2.2381 VTECU (for Mw
6.2, respectively) for the analysis of three permanent GNSS
stations (PETS, MAG0, and STK2). Furthermore, we
observed abnormal positive variations in the data of three
GNSS stations from IGS within the vicinity of the
mainshock.
To quantify the number of positive and negative anoma-
lies associated with the mainshocks of different EQs with a
different number of stations in the Dobrovolsky region, we
calculated the cumulative count and increase/decrease per-
centages of seismo ionospheric anomalies (Figs. 4-5). The
increase and decrease percentages in Fig. 4 were calculated
by the following method.
Increase and Decrease ð%Þ
single EQanomalies  totalanomalies
¼  100 ð8Þ
totalanomalies
The positive and negative ionospheric anomalies of a
single event were subtracted from the all earthquake
anomalies EQs in Eq (8) to get the increase and decrease
percentages. This analysis was conducted on different sta-
tions depending upon the availability of GNSS stations
within the Dobrovolsky region of an EQ. The cumulative
count represents the total number of positive and negative
anomalies associated with all events. Fig. 4 shows the
cumulative counts and increase/decrease percentages for
5.0 < Mw < 6.0 global EQs during 2000–2020 for different
stations in the Dobrovolsky region. It is clear that the
abnormal peak of seismo ionospheric anomalies occurs
with 2 and > 3 GNSS stations for 5.0 < Mw < 6.0 EQs after
excluding geomagnetic storm variations (second panels of
Fig. 4c-4d). Moreover, the increase and decrease percent-

Fig. 4. Cumulative counts and increase/decrease percentages for 5.0 < Mw < 6.0 global EQs during 2000–2020 having (a) 1-GNSS, (b) 2-GNSS, (c) 3-
GNSS, and (d) > 3-GNSS stations within the Dobrovolsky region around the epicentral region. The analysis was conducted for seismo ionospheric
anomalies before and after excluding geomagnetic storm (Kp > 3) anomalies. It is clear that ionospheric variations are abnormal for the EQs having
VTEC data from 3 or more than 3 GNSS stations during 5–10-day prior to the events and subsequent to mainshocks. The main shock occurs on the day
(0) in all the panels.
5
M. Shah et al.
ages showed the abnormal peak with 5–10 days before/
after all EQs with all GNSS stations in case of Mw > 6.0
events (Fig. 5). However, more clear variations occur with
3 and > 3 GNSS stations data of Mw > 6.0 events (second
panels of Fig. 5c-5d).
The percentage variations of positive, negative, and false
anomalies (geomagnetic storm and anomalies outside of 5–
10 days prior/followed by the mainshock) were studied for
all the EQs during 2000–2020 (Fig. 6). This analysis was
also implemented on seismo ionospheric anomalies before
and after excluding storm anomalies. The left panels of
Fig. 6 present positive, negative, and false anomalies
(anomalies outside of 5–10 days window prior/followed
by mainshock), while the right panels of Fig. 6 have posi-
tive, negative, and false anomalies (anomalies of storm
and anomalies outside of 5–10 days window prior/followed
by the mainshock). It is noteworthy to mention that iono-
spheric anomalies. On the other hand, positive and nega-
tive seismic anomalies were more frequent than,
specifically positive enhance after excluding false anomalies
(right panels of Fig. 6), false anomalies for such EQs, where
the GNSS TEC values were retrieved from 3 or more
GNSS stations (panels c-d of Fig. 6). This emphasizes the
need to study ionospheric anomalies in more statistical
analysis with different satellites to confirm the EQ iono-
sphere precursor. Furthermore, the characteristics and
Fig. 5. The number of anomalies in the cumulative count and increase/decrease percentage for global Mw > 6.0 EQs by utilizing the data of (a) 1-GNSS
station, (b) 2-GNSS stations, (c) 3-GNSS stations, and (d) > 3-GNSS stations within the Dobrovolsky region around the epicenter within the seismic breed
days (mainshock day is on 0). The analysis was performed before and after excluding the storm-induced ionospheric and false anomalies and a clear
anomalous pattern is visible for the events after excluding storm anomalies.
6
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
morphology of seismo ionospheric anomalies need to con-
firm the reliable EQ-induced ionospheric precursor. In
Fig. 7, one can see clearly more positive and negative iono-
spheric anomalies associated with global EQs during max-
imum period solar cycles (23 and 24) and minimum peiod
of solar cycles (23 and 24), respectively. This analysis is
only performed for the solar maximum and minimum peri-
ods of the solar cycles during 2000–2020. Moreover, more
perturbations in ionosphere associated with global main
shocks occur within 2–5 days of the seismic breed day.
4. Discussion
Previous studies reported the occurrence of VTEC
anomalies within 5–10 days during the EQ preparation per-
iod (Kon et al., 2011; Shah and Jin, 2015; Ke et al., 2016;
Sekertekin et al., 2020). For example, Liu et al. (2004)
investigated a decrease in VTEC anomalies within 5 days
before 20
6:0 EQs in the Taiwan region between Septem-
ber 1999-December 2002, while according to Pulinets and
Boyarchuk (2004) VTEC anomalies can also be observed
up to 12 days before severe and strong EQs. The physical
mechanism behind the generation of these anomalies is dis-
cussed in many studies. For example, Kuo et al. (2011) sim-
ulated the ionospheric electron density for the coupling of
the lithosphere and ionosphere by numerical procedures
M. Shah et al.
Fig. 6. The percentages of positive, negative, and false anomalies from
GNSS TEC stations for (a) 1-GNSS station, (b) 2-GNSS stations, (c) 3-
GNSS stations, and (d) > 3-GNSS stations within the Dobrovolsky region
of each mainshock. This study was also conducted before and after
excluding storm anomalies within 20 days induced by mainshock and for
20 followed by the mainshock day.
and the EQ conductivity was driven to the ionosphere by
an upward electric current. Furthermore, they portrayed
the increase/decrease in ionospheric perturbations due to
Fig. 7. The cumulative number of EQ associated positive and negative ionospheric anomalies during solar cycles 23 and 24 in maximum and minimum
sunspots time.
7
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
ions emanation over the epicenter as a consequence of
the plasma flow. These findings motivated us to investigate
the ionospheric conditions during quiet geomagnetic activ-
ity before EQs.
The purpose of this paper is clear in many aspects for
the linkage of the lithosphere and its association with the
ionosphere. For example, pre-seismic anomalies occur
more clearly with Mw > 6.0 EQs after eliminating geomag-
netic storm perturbations in 3 or more GNSS stations
operating within the seismogenic zone estimated from the
Dobrovolsky region. Moreover, the anomalies in the form
of false anomalies (i.e., anomalies caused by geomagnetic
activities, and anomalies outside the 5–10 days window)
presented less percentage than seismo ionospheric irregu-
larities (Fig. 6). The analysis provided a brief overview of
the differentiation of positive, negative, and false anoma-
lies. The positive anomalies were the most predominant,
this correlate well with the previous findings of Shah
et al. (2020a). However, a differences relies in that Shah
et al. (2020a) calculated the anomalies for a shorter time
interval and this study comprised a long term of seismo
ionospheric anomalies with large magnitude earthquakes
occurred during 2000–2020. Similarly, Figs. 4-5 depict the
final statistics concerning the VTEC deviations in terms
of seismic anomalies after excluding the geomagnetic
induced perturbation, with the objective of significantly
correlate GNSS-TEC anomalies with EQs. Also, it can be
observed that possible seismic anomalies exhibited a perti-
nent VTEC deviation within 5–10 day window before
mainshock and that deviation become weaken after the
mainshock day beyond 5th day (see e.g., Fig. 5). Moreover,
it should be noted that the deviations after the mainshocks
of all EQs initiate towards less variations after the 5th day
and not immediately after the mainshock day. This pro-
vided another evidence that pre-and-post anomalies are
frequently associated with EQs of large magnitude (e.g.,
Figs. 5-6). The ionospheric anomalies in this study were
associated with large magnitude EQs. Additionlly, Fig. 7
confirms more positive VTEC anomalies within 2–5 days
before/after the main shocks during maximum period years
M. Shah et al.
(2003–2004 & 2013–2014) of the solar cycles (23 and 24)
and negative ionospheric anomalies are prominent in min-
imum peiod years (2008–2009 & 2019–2020) of the solar
cycles (23 and 24). In contrast, some other reports classified
the thermal heating of the ionosphere from the lower atmo-
sphere during quiet geomagnetic activities (Forbes et al.,
2000; Bilitza et al., 2004). Another interesting and unique
phenomenon associated with the EQs can be observed in
Fig. 6. Specially, it can be observed that a smaller amount
of false anomalies occur than EQ-associated positive and
negative anomalies. On the other hand, some reports
strongly rejected the existence of EQ ionosphere anomalies
with GNSS TEC (Afraimovich et al., 2004). However,
more studies support the execution of EQ induce iono-
sphere anomalies with GNSS TEC. All these reports
emphasized more analysis of VTEC monitoring during
Kp < 3 storm conditions with a well-equipped cluster of
the ground and satellite-based observations for EQ precur-
sors. Recently, more reports present different characteris-
tics and morphologies of seismo-ionospheric and-
atmospheric variations in the lower atmosphere followed
by the ionosphere (Rahman, 2020; Ahmed et al., 2021;
Adil et al., 2021a).
5. Conclusions
We study the possible relation of EQs and ionospheric
anomalies in a statistical analysis from GNSS TEC of
worldwide IGS network associated with global Mw > 5.0
EQs during 2000–2020. The results suggested that abrupt
seismic induced VTEC variations occur after excluding
the variations of Kp > 3 geomagnetic activities, which fur-
ther triggered the emanation of energy from the EQ-prone
region in the ionosphere. We also conducted different anal-
yses to find more evidences for the coupling of lithosphere
and ionosphere over the epicenters of Mw > 5.0 EQs. The
key findings from our analysis are:
 A strong possibility to observe ionospheric positive
VTEC anomalies within a 5–10 days window with
Mw > 6.0 earthquakes using 3 or more operational
GNSS stations within the Dobrovolsky region in the
mainshock region. Furthermore, the enhancement in
ionospheric VTEC was initiated 5 days before the main-
shock, which reached to maximum peak on the main-
shock day. Then, the variations in VTEC began
towards low ionospheric values immediately after the
mainshock day.
 The intensity of positive anomalies associated with glo-
bal EQs was more than the negative anomalies in all
observed ionospheric anomalies and also more positive
(negative) anomalies occur in solar maximum (mini-
mum) years of the solar cycles 23 and 24. Furthermore,
we also quantify the false anomalies, which represent
anomalies induced by geomagnetic storms (Kp > 3)
8
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
and ionospheric anomalies with no EQ or storm events.
However, the number of EQ-induced anomalies was
more than all the observed anomalies.
 A strong tendency of EQ ionosphere variations was
recorded in moderate geomagnetic variations during
the analyzed period before and after the main shocks.
These results suggested that seismo ionosphere anoma-
lies may exist but the need for more dedicated ground
and space observations will further clarify the
phenomenon.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the IGS community for pro-
viding GNSS-TEC data. We are also thankful to USGS for
providing EQs information and the ISGI community for
providing geomagnetic storm indices. The authors are also
thankful to the editor and reveiwers for their useful com-
ments and suggestions.
References
Abbasi, A.R., Shah, M., Ahmed, A., Naqvi, N.A., 2021. Possible
ionospheric anomalies associated with the 2009 Mw 6.4 Taiwan
earthquake from DEMETER and GNSS TEC. Acta Geod. Geophys.
56 (1) 77–91. doi: 10.1007/s40328-020-00325-1.
Adil, M.A., Shah, M., Abbas, A., Ehsan, M., Naqvi, N.A., 2021b.
Investigation of ionospheric and atmospheric anomalies associated
with three Mw > 6.5 EQs in New Zealand. J. Geodyn., 101841. doi:
10.1016/j.jog.2021.101841.
Adil, M.A., Sß entürk, E., Shah, M., Naqvi, N.A., Saqib, M., Abbasi, A.R.,
2021a. Atmospheric and ionospheric disturbances associated with the
M > 6 earthquakes in the East Asian sector: a case study of two
consecutive earthquakes in Taiwan. J. Asian Earth Sci. 220. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2021.104918 104918.
Afraimovich, E.L., Astafieva, E.I., Gokhberg, M.B., Lapshin, V.M.,
Permyakova, V.E., Steblov, G.M., Shalimov, S.L., 2004. Variations of
the total electron content in the ionosphere from GPS data recorded
during the Hector Mine earthquake of October 16, 1999 California.
Russ. J. Earth Sci. 6 (5), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.2205/
2004ES000155.
Ahmed, J., Shah, M., Awais, M., Jin, S., Ali Zafar, W., Ahmad, N., Amin,
A., Ali Shah, M., Ali, I., 2021. Seismo-ionospheric anomalies before
the 2019 Mirpur earthquake from ionosonde measurements. Adv.
Space Res. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2021.07.030.
Bilitza, D., Obrou, O.K., Adeniyi, J.O., Oladipo, O., 2004. Variability of
foF2 in the equatorial ionosphere. Adv. Space Res. 34, 1901–1906.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2004.08.004.
Calabia, A., Anoruo, C., Shah, M., Amory-Mazaudier, C., Yasyukevich,
Y., Owolabi, C., Jin, S., 2022. Low-latitude ionospheric responses and
coupling to the February 2014 multiphase geomagnetic storm from
GNSS, magnetometers, and space weather data. Atmosphere 13 (4),
518. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13040518.
M. Shah et al.
De Santis, A., Marchetti, D., Pavón-Carrasco, F.J., Cianchini, G.,
Perrone, L., Abbattista, C., Alfonsi, L., Amoruso, L., Campuzano,
S.A., Carbone, M., Cesaroni, C., De Franceschi, G., De Santis, A., Di
Giovambattista, R., Ippolito, A., Piscini, A., Sabbagh, D., Soldani,
M., Santoro, F., Spogli, L., Haagmans, R., 2019. Precursory world-
wide signatures of earthquake occurrences on Swarm satellite data. Sci.
Rep. 9 (1), 20287. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56599-1.
Dobrovolsky, I.R., Zubkov, S.I., Myachkin, V.I., 1979. Estimation of the
size of earth-quake preparation zones. Pure Appl. Geophys. 117, 1025–
1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00876083.
Forbes, J.M., Palo, S.E., Zhang, X., 2000. Variability of the ionosphere. J.
Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phy. 62, 685–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-
6826(00)00029-8.
Freund, F., 2002. Charge generation and propagation in igneous rocks. J.
Geodyn. 33 (4), 543–570.
Hafeez, A., Shah, M., Ehsan, M., Jamjareegulgarn, P., Ahmed, J.,
Tariq, M.A., Iqbal, S., Naqvi, N.A., 2021. Possible atmosphere and
ionospheric anomalies of the 2019 Pakistan earthquake using
statistical and machine learning procedures on MODIS LST, GPS
TEC and GIM TEC. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote
Sens. 14, 11126–11133. https://doi.org/10.1109/
JSTARS.2021.3119382.
Heki, K., Enomoto, Y., 2013. Preseismic ionospheric electron enhance-
ments revisited. J. Geophys. Res. Space Phys. 118, 6618–6626. https://
doi.org/10.1002/jgra.50578.
Ke, F., Wang, Y., Wang, X., Qian, H., Shi, C., 2016. Statistical analysis of
seismo-ionospheric anomalies related to Ms > 5.0 earthquakes in
China by GPS TEC. J. Seismolog. 20 (1), 137–149. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10950-015-9516-x.
Kiyani, A., Shah, M., Ahmed, A., Shah, H.H., Hameed, S., Adil, M.A.,
Naqvi, N.A., 2020. Seismo ionospheric anomalies possibly associated
with the 2018 Mw 8.2 Fiji earthquake detected with GNSS TEC. J.
Geodyn. 140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2020.101782 101782.
Kon, S., Nishihashi, M., Hattori, K., 2011. Ionospheric anomalies
possibly associated with MP6.0 earthquakes in the Japan area during
1998–2010: case studies and statistical study. J. Asian Earth Sci. 41 (4),
410–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.10.005.
Kuo, C.L., Huba, J.D., Joyce, G., Lee, L.C., 2011. Ionosphere plasma
bubbles and density variations induced by pre-earthquake rock
currents and associated surface charges. J. Geophys. Res. 116,
A10317. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JA016628.
Liu, J.Y., Chuo, Y.J., Shan, S.J., Tsai, Y.B., Chen, Y.I., Pulinets, S.A.,
Yu, S.B., 2004. Preearthquake ionospheric anomalies registered by
continuous GPS-TEC measurements. Ann. Geophys. 22, 1585–1593.
doi: 10.5194/angeo-22-1585-2004, 2004.
Pulinets, S.A., Boyarchuk, K.A., 2004. Ionospheric Precursors of Earth-
quakes. Springer Verlag Publ., pp. 131–171.
Pulinets, S., Davidenko, D., 2014. Ionospheric precursors of earthquakes
and Global Electric Circuit. Adv. Space Res. 53 (5), 709–723. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.asr.2013.12.035.
Rahman, Z.U., 2020, Possible seismo ionospheric anomalies before the
2016 Mw 7.6 Chile earthquake from GPS TEC, GIM TEC and swarm
satellites. Nat. Appl. Sci. Int. J. (NASIJ) 1 (1), pp. 11–20, doi:
10.47264/idea.nasij/1.1.2.
Roma-Dollase, D., Hernández-Pajares, M., Krankowski, A., Kotulak, K.,
Ghoddousi-Fard, R., Yuan, Y., Li, Z., Zhang, H., Shi, C., Wang, C.,
2018. Consistency of seven different GNSS global ionospheric mapping
Advances in Space Research xxx (xxxx) xxx
techniques during one solar cycle. J. Geod. 92, 691–706. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00190-017-1088-9.
Sekertekin, A., Inyurt, S., Yaprak, S., 2020. Pre-seismic ionospheric
anomalies and spatio-temporal analyses of MODIS Land surface
temperature and aerosols associated with Sep, 24 2013 Pakistan
Earthquake. J. Atmos. Solar-Terrestrial Phys. 200, 105218. doi:
10.1016/j.jastp.2020.105218.
Shah, M., Abbas, A., Ehsan, M., Aiber, A.C., Adhikari, B., Tariq, M.A.,
Ahmed, J., Júnior, J.F.O., Yan, J., Morales, A.M., Jamjareegulgarn,
P., 2021c. Ionospheric-thermospheric responses to the August 2018
geomagnetic storm over south america from multiple satellites. IEEE
J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. 15, 261–269. https://doi.
org/10.1109/JSTARS.2021.3134495.
Shah, M., Ahmed, A., Ehsan, M., Khan, M., Tariq, M.A., Calabia, A.,
Rahman, Z.U., 2020a. Total electron content anomalies associated
with earthquakes occurred during 1998–2019. Acta Astronaut. 175,
268–276. doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.06.005.
Shah, M., Aibar, A.C., Tariq, M.A., Ahmed, J., Ahmed, A., 2020b.
Possible ionosphere and atmosphere precursory analysis related to
Mw > 6.0 earthquakes in Japan. Remote Sens. Environ. 239, 111620.
doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.111620.
Shah, M., Inyurt, S., Ehsan, M., Ahmed, A., Shakir, M., Ullah, S., Iqbal,
M.S., 2020c. Seismo ionospheric anomalies in Turkey associated with
Mw
6.0 earthquakes detected by GPS stations and GIM TEC. Adv.
Space Res. 65 (11), 2540–2550. doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2020.03.005.
Shah, M., Ehsan, M., Abbas, A., Ahmed, A., Jamjareegulgarn, P., 2021a.
Possible thermal anomalies associated with global terrestrial earth-
quakes during 2000-2019 based on MODIS-LST. IEEE Geosci.
Remote Sens. Lett., 1–5. doi: 10.1109/LGRS.2021.3084930.
Shah, M., Qureshi, R.U., Khan, N.G., Ehsan, M., Yan, J., 2021b,
Artificial Neural Network based thermal anomalies associated with
earthquakes in Pakistan from MODIS LST. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr.
Phys. 215, 105568. doi: 10.1016/j.jastp.2021.105568.
Shah, M., Jin, S., 2015. Statistical characteristics of seismo-ionospheric
GPS TEC disturbances prior to global Mw
5.0 earthquakes
(1998–2014). J. Geodyn. 92, 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.
2015.10.002.
Shah, M., Tariq, M.A., Ahmad, J., Naqvi, N.A., Jin, S., 2019. Seismo
ionospheric anomalies before the 2007 M7.7 Chile earthquake from
GPS TEC and DEMETER. J. Geodyn. 127, 42–51.
Shahzad, R., Shah, M., Ahmed, A., 2021. Comparison of VTEC from
GPS and IRI-2007, IRI-2012 and IRI-2016 over Sukkur Pakistan.
Astrophys. Space Sci. 366 (4), 42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10509-021-
03947-1.
Tariq, M.A., Shah, M., Inyurt, S., Shah, M.A., Liu, L., 2020. Comparison
of TEC from IRI-2016 and GPS during the low solar activity over
Turkey. Astrophys. Space Sci. 365 (11), 179. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10509-019-3591-3.
Tariq, M.A., Shah, M., Li, Z., Wang, N., Shah, M.A., Iqbal, T., Liu, L.,
2021. Lithosphere ionosphere coupling associated with three earth-
quakes in Pakistan from GPS and GIM TEC. J. Geodyn. 147. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2021.101860 101860.
Timoçin, E., Temuçin, H., Inyurt, S., Shah, M., Jamjareegulgarn, P., 2021.
Assessment of improvement of the IRI model for foF2 variability over
three latitudes in different hemispheres during low and high solar
activities. Acta Astronaut. 180, 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
actaastro.2020.12.042.