The Astrophysical Journal, 959:68 (7pp), 2023 December 20 https://doi.org/10.

3847/1538-4357/ad09b4
© 2023. The Author(s). Published by the American Astronomical Society.

Kinetic and Shear Alfvén Waves in a Large Guide-field Reconnection at Earthʼs

Magnetopause
Wai-Leong Teh1 , Wenzhe Zhang2,3 , and Huishan Fu2,3
1
Space Science Centre, Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
2
School of Space and Environment, Beihang University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
3
Key Laboratory of Space Environment Monitoring and Information Processing, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Beijing, People’s Republic of
China
Received 2023 August 9; revised 2023 October 20; accepted 2023 November 3; published 2023 December 7

Abstract
A large guide-field (∼1.1Bo) reconnection X-line, observed by the Magnetospheric Multiscale spacecraft during an
outbound magnetopause crossing, is studied for Alfvén waves. Here Bo is the reconnecting field magnitude. The
current sheet thickness of the magnetopause was ∼2.6 ion inertial lengths (∼269 km), where field-aligned counter-
streaming electrons were observed and Hall electromagnetic fields were identified. A remarkable finding was that a
kinetic Alfvén wave (KAW) was seen in the magnetopause upstream region after a shear Alfvén wave (SAW) was
encountered in the magnetopause layer. The presence of both the SAW and KAW near the reconnection X-line is
for the first time reported. In the spacecraft frame of reference, the SAW has a dominant frequency at ∼0.74 Hz,
while the KAW has two dominant frequencies at ∼0.38 and ∼0.64 Hz. The wave energy for KAW and SAW was
mostly carried away from the reconnection site by the Poynting flux parallel to the magnetic field. The parallel
temperatures for ions and electrons were increased at KAW. The peaks of T∥/T⊥ for ions were located near the
wave peaks, while the ratio peaks for electrons were near the wave troughs. Our findings suggest that KAWS and
SAWs can be generated by asymmetric reconnection with a large guide field.
Unified Astronomy Thesaurus concepts: Alfvén waves (23); Space plasmas (1544)

1. Introduction Using kinetic particle-in-cell simulations, Shay et al. (2011)

Alfvénic fluctuations are coupled fluctuations in the plasma
velocity (V) and magnetic field (B), where changes in V and B
are governed by DV = aDB m0 r , with ρ being the
plasma mass density and α being constant. When ΔV and ΔB
are correlated/anticorrelated, the transverse Alfvénic fluctua-
tions are propagating antiparallel/parallel to the underlying
magnetic field. A pure Alfvén wave has α being ±1. Super-
position of different modes will result in deviations from the
pure Alfvén waves. The Alfvénic fluctuations have been widely
observed in various space plasma environments, for example,
in the solar wind (e.g., Gosling et al. 2009; Paschmann et al.
2013), magnetosheath (e.g., Roberts et al. 2018), plasma sheet
boundary layer (e.g., Wygant et al. 2002), and ionosphere (e.g.,
Chaston et al. 2002). From a shear Alfvén wave (SAW), a
kinetic Alfvén wave (KAW) is formed when the perpendicular
wavelength becomes comparable to the ion thermal gyroradius
(d = cs/Ωi). Here cs= kb T^ mi is the ion thermal speed and
Ωi = eB/mi is the ion gyrofrequency. KAWs are obliquely
propagating low-frequency waves, while SAWs can be parallel
and oblique ones.
KAWs have been considered as an energy source for auroral
particle acceleration (e.g., Lysak 2023). The electrons that
generate discrete aurora in the upper ionosphere are accelerated
by the parallel electric field, which is induced by KAWs from a
reconnection site in the magnetotail. It has been demonstrated
from Cluster observations that Poynting fluxes associated with
KAWs radiate obliquely outward from the reconnection
diffusion region in the magnetotail (Chaston et al. 2009).
Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence. Any further
distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title
of the work, journal citation and DOI.
found that the Hall magnetic field near the separatrices is
associated with KAWs. Gershman et al. (2017) confirmed from
Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) observations that there is a
conservative energy exchange between ion-scale KAWs and
particles in the reconnection exhaust at the magnetopause.
These previous studies concluded that KAWs play an essential
role in the energy transfer process and in facilitating magnetic
reconnection.
This paper aims to report MMS observations of a large
guide-field reconnection X-line at the dawn flank magnetopause
for Alfvén waves. A remarkable finding was that both the SAW
and KAW were encountered during the X-line crossing. This
event was identified from a large data set (62 cases) of well-
determined rotational discontinuities by Haaland et al. (2020) at
the flank magnetopause. The multi-spacecraft timing method
(e.g., Vogt et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2022) is implemented to
estimate wavevector properties (e.g., wave propagation direc-
tion, phase speed, and wavenumber), using four-point magnetic
field measurements.
2. MMS Observations and Analysis Results
Around 23:43:20 UT, on 2015 December 15, the four MMS
spacecraft with a tetrahedron formation (Burch et al. 2016)
made an outbound magnetopause crossing located around (8.9,
−5.0, −0.7) RE (Earthʼs radius) in geocentric solar ecliptic
(GSE) coordinates. The inter-spacecraft distances were small,
ranging between ∼24 and ∼14 km. In Figure 1, the data were
based on the MMS1 observations of magnetic fields from the
fluxgate magnetometer (FGM; Russell et al. 2016), electric
fields from the electric double probes (EDP; Lindqvist et al.
2016), and ion and electron plasma moments from the fast
plasma investigation (FPI; Pollock et al. 2016), at time

1
The Astrophysical Journal, 959:68 (7pp), 2023 December 20
Figure 1. (a)–(g) MMS1 observations of a large guide-field reconnection X-line during the magnetopause crossing enclosed by the vertical lines, with vectors shown
in LMN coordinate systems. (h)–(j) The rates of energy conversion and the parallel electric fields. The magenta dashed line in panel (a) denotes the ambient
reconnection guide field. The green line in panel (e) denotes the Hall electric fields evaluated in the X-line moving frame.
resolutions in burst modes. To remove high-frequency noises,
the electron plasma moments (ne, Te, and Ve) were smoothed
by a Savitzky–Golay filter (Press & Teukolsky 1990) with a
span width of 101 data points. The current density was
calculated as j = qne(Vi − Ve) using the FPI data, where q is the
electron charge. In Figure 1(a), the two vertical dashed lines
denote the time interval (23:43:12 UT–23:43:28 UT) of the
magnetopause crossing from the magnetospheric boundary
layer (BL>0) to the magnetosheath (BL < 0). At the vertical
lines, the magnetic fields in GSE were B1 = (1.1, −26.0, 35.0)
nT and B2 = (−15.6, −41.7, −23.4) nT for the magnetospheric
and magnetosheath sides, respectively. The magnetic shear
angle was ∼84° across the magnetopause. The LMN boundary
coordinates in Figure 1 were defined as M = (B1 × B2) ×
(B2–B1)/|(B1 × B2) × (B2–B1)| (the guide-field direction),
N = B1 × B2/| B1 × B2| (the magnetopause normal), and
L = M × N (the reconnecting field direction). The resulting
axes in GSE are L = (0.267, 0.250, 0.931), M = (0.170, 0.938,
−0.301), and N = (0.949, −0.238, −0.208). The reconnecting
field magnitude B0 was estimated ∼31.4 nT, based on the
average value of |B1 · L| and |B2 · L|. As indicated by the
magenta dashed line in Figure 1(a), the ambient reconnection
guide field across the magnetopause was estimated as BG =
B1 · M = B2 · M = ∼−34.8 nT, corresponding to ∼1.1 B0. As
seen in Figure 1(b), reconnection outflows (>100 km s−1) were
observed in ViL and their signs were reversed from negative to
positive during the magnetopause crossing, suggesting that a
magnetic X-line moved southward through the spacecraft. The
southward (V iL < 0) and northward (ViL > 0) reconnection
2
Teh, Zhang, & Fu
outflows were, respectively, accompanied by BN > 0 and BN <
0, consistent with a two-dimensional reconnection scenario for
the magnetopause. Using the measured electric field data
between 23:43:13 and 23:43:24 UT, the estimated velocity of
the X-line in GSE was V0 = (−33.9, −5.8, −67.3) km s−1,
from the least squares method developed by Sonnerup &
Hasegawa (2005). The normal magnetopause velocity was then
calculated as V0 · N = −16.8 km s−1 and therefore the
thickness of the magnetopause current layer was |V0 · N|Δt =
∼269 km (∼2.6 λi), where Δt = 16 s is the duration of the
magnetopause crossing. Here λi = 102 km is the ion inertial
length, based on the upstream (magnetosheath) values of
n = 5 cm−3.
As indicated in Figure 1(e), the Hall electric fields evaluated
in the X-line moving frame, (E + (Vi - V0 ) ´ B)N , were
pointing toward the magnetosheath side within the magneto-
pause, similar to the results shown in Figure 6(d) of Pritchett &
Mozer (2009) for asymmetric reconnection with a guide field.
The Hall magnetic field, BM − BG, was positive for the
quadrants (ViL < 0, BL>0) and (ViL>0, BL < 0), as shown in
Figure 1(a). A remarkable feature was observed in the β > 1
region (β is the ratio of the ion thermal pressure to the magnetic
pressure; see Figure 1(f)), namely, that low-frequency waves
were found in both the magnetic field and ion velocity
components in the L and N directions. These waves were also
seen at the current densities jL and jN. Later, it will be
demonstrated that changes in BL and BN were negatively
correlated with those for the ion plasma velocity. Furthermore,
low-frequency waves were also found in the ion and electron
The Astrophysical Journal, 959:68 (7pp), 2023 December 20
Figure 2. (a) Electron PAD for the energy range of 0.2–2.0 keV. (b)–(d) The
overlaid plots of the magnetic field and the ion and electron velocity (−Vi and
−Ve) for each component in LMN coordinate systems. The vertical lines mark
the duration of the magnetopause crossing.
velocities in the low β region (β < 1). The rates of energy
conversion, j · E, Ve · (j × B), and j · E¢, are shown in
Figures 1(h) and (i), where E¢ = E + Ve ´ B. The dot product
of j · E¢ can be written as j · E − Ve · (j × B), where Ve · (j × B)
is the rate of work done by the Lorentz force in the ideal MHD.
Therefore, the nonzero j · E¢ indicates the nonideal MHD
energy transfer between electromagnetic fields and plasmas
(Zenitani et al. 2012). One can find in Figure 1(j) that
significant parallel electric fields were present during the
energy conversion process.
In Figure 2 each component of the magnetic field vector in
LMN coordinates was plotted on top of the corresponding
component of -Vi and -Ve, together with a color map of the
electron pitch angle distribution (PAD) for energy range
0.2–2.0 keV. It is seen that changes in B were negatively
correlated with Vi and Ve. Field-aligned counter-streaming
electrons were detected within the magnetopause, which is
considered one of the signatures for the reconnection ion
diffusion region (e.g., Teh et al. 2012). Changes in BL and BN
were mostly coupled with -ViL and -ViN within the magneto-
pause, while in the upstream region, the magnetic field
variations were coupled with both the ion and electron
velocities for all three components.
By calculating the consecutive differences in Vi (δVi), the
wave structures of Vi were manifested and then compared with
δVa = δ(B/ m0 mp n ), as shown in Figures 3(a)–(c). Here Va is
the ion Alfvén velocity, mp is the proton mass, and n is the
plasma density. For the time interval enclosed by the green
lines in Figures 3(a)–(c), the δVi perturbations were negatively
correlated with δVa and dominant at the L and N directions.
The slope of a regression line was ∼−1.3 between δViL and
δVaL and ∼−1.6 between δViN and δVaN, while these two
slopes became −0.3 and −0.7 for the time interval enclosed by
the gray lines. Comparisons of δVe with δVa in Figures 3(d)–(f)
revealed that the δVe perturbations were also negatively
3
Teh, Zhang, & Fu
correlated with δVa in between the gray lines, but not found
in between the green lines. The δVe perturbations were present
at all three components, where the regression slopes were −0.6,
−1.3, and −0.6 for the L, M, and N directions, respectively. In
the next section, it will be shown that the first waveform is of
an SAW and the other is of a KAW. Figure 3(g) compares the
Poynting flux magnitude, |S|, with the parallel one, |S∥|, and
indicates that the wave Poynting flux parallel to the magnetic
field carries most of the energy, expected for SAW and KAW.
The ratios Te∥/Te⊥ and T∥/T⊥ show that the parallel
temperature for ions and electrons was increased at KAW
(Figure 3(h)). It is noteworthy that the peaks of T∥/T⊥ were
located near the wave peaks denoted by the red dashed lines,
while the peaks of Te∥/Te⊥ were near the wave troughs.
3. Wavevector Analysis
Figure 4(a) shows for the four MMS spacecraft the δBL of
the first waveform in the time interval between 23:43:15 and
23:43:21 UT, where the high-frequency fluctuations in δBL
have been removed by the Savitzky–Golay filter with a span
width of 91 data points. One can see that the crossing times of
the wavefront for the four spacecraft were different. Figure 4(b)
shows the power spectral density (PSD) of δBL based on
MMS1. A single spectral peak, denoted by the red dashed line,
was present at fm = ∼0.74 Hz, smaller than the proton
gyrofrequency fci (green line), in the spacecraft frame. Using a
bandpass filter at 0.70–0.78 Hz, a single-frequency wave can
be approximately derived. Therefore, the wavevector, k, and
the wave phase speed, vph, can be estimated by the multi-
k
spacecraft timing method, where m = ( v ) = åa4 = 1 ka tga and
ph
|k| = 1. Here κα is the reciprocal vector for the spacecraft
tetrahedron (Chanteur 1998) and tγα = tα − tγ is the crossing
time difference between two spacecraft, where tγ is at the
reference spacecraft, which is MMS1 in this study. The time
delays tγα were determined by the maximum value of the cross-
correlation function. The timing analysis results for the first
waveform were vph = ∣ m ∣ = 281 km s−1 and k = vphm =
1
(−0.491, −0.816, 0.304) (GSE). A wave normal angle θBk of
∼18° formed between k and the magnetic field and the ratio of
k⊥ to k∥ was ∼0.3. Since the magnetic X-line is moving
southward (V0z <0) and kz > 0, the wave is thus propagating
away from the diffusion region. The wavenumber, k, can then
be roughly estimated as 2 v m = 1.644 × 10−2 km−1, which
f
ph
gives k⊥d = ∼0.2. Here d = ∼41 km is the ion thermal
gyroradius based on upstream values of T⊥ = 410 eV and
B = 50 nT. In the ion velocity frame of reference, the wave
v ·k
frequency was estimated as fps = fm - 2p = ∼0.41
Hz = ∼0.118 fci, where v = (−115.8, −119.8, −95.5)
(km s−1) is the average ion plasma velocity. In summary, the
overall result suggests that the first waveform is of an SAW, in
k
terms of the parallel wave propagation, k^ <1, and k⊥d <1.

Figure 4(c) shows the δBL of the second waveform for the
four spacecraft in the time interval between 23:43:27 and
23:43:46 UT. In Figure 4(d), two spectral peaks with
comparable PSD were present at fm1 = ∼0.38 Hz (black
dashed line) and fm2 = ∼0.64 Hz (red dashed line) in the
spacecraft frame. A single-frequency wave can approximately
be extracted for fm1 and fm2, by using a bandpass filter at
0.35–0.40 Hz and 0.6–0.7 Hz, respectively. For fm1,
vph1 = 120 km s−1 and k1 = (−0.272, −0.222, 0.936) (GSE),
The Astrophysical Journal, 959:68 (7pp), 2023 December 20 Teh, Zhang, & Fu

Figure 3. (a)–(f) Wave structures for ion and electron plasma velocities, and magnetic field. (g) Comparison of the Poynting flux |S| to |S∥|. (h) The ratio of parallel to
perpendicular temperature for ions (blue) and electrons (red). The first and second waveforms are enclosed by the green and gray lines, respectively. The red dashed
lines denote the wave peaks.

= ∼5.6. For fm2, vph2 = 170 km s−1
k^
with θBk = ∼80o and k
and k2 = (−0.739, −0.230, 0.633) (GSE), with θBk = ∼67°
k SAW and KAW. A good agreement is found at the cross
and k^ = ∼2.3. The resulting wavenumbers for fm1 and fm2 are
 symbols, where at the same wave frequency the result of the
k1 = 1.962 × 10−2 km−1 and k2 = 2.362 × 10−2 km−1, giving
k⊥d = 0.8 and 0.9, respectively. The wave frequencies in the
ion velocity frame, i.e., v = (−56.8, −72.1, 48.5) (km s−1),
were fps1 = ∼0.13 Hz = ∼0.029 fci and fps2 = ∼0.30
Hz = ∼0.066 fci. Note that the normalized frequency in the
plasma frame in Figure 4(d) was calculated using the k2 result.
Apparently, the second waveform is different than the SAW
seen in the magnetopause layer. It is suggested that the second
waveform is of a KAW, in terms of the perpendicular
propagation, k⊥/k∥ > 1, and k⊥d ∼ 1. Since k1z and k2z are
directed northward, the KAW is thus propagating away from
the reconnection site.
Additionally, the wave dispersion relation was examined for
SAW and KAW, using the multi-spacecraft timing method
developed by Zhang et al. (2022), where the phase speed and
wavevector were calculated at each time for each single-
frequency wave in the range from zero to the Nyquist
frequency. In Figures 5(a) and (c), the dispersion relations
are shown for θBk = 0°–30° (SAW) and θBk = 60°–90°
(KAW), where the color code denotes the wave power P( f, k)
derived from a wavelet transform and the red dashed line
denotes the local Alfvén speed. As compared to SAW, the
KAW has a much wider k range at the same frequency,
suggesting the presence of multiple wave branches in the
KAW. The frequency versus k⊥d is also shown for SAW
(Figure 5(b)) and KAW (Figure 5(d)). In Figure 5, the cross
and triangle symbols denote the previous analysis results for
cross symbol is close to the one with a high wave power, but a
large discrepancy at the triangle symbol. This discrepancy
could be attributed to the multiple wave branches in KAW.
4. Summary and Discussion
A large guide-field (∼1.1Bo) reconnection X-line, observed
by the MMS spacecraft during the outbound magnetopause
crossing, has been examined for Alfvén waves. The current
sheet thickness of the magnetopause was ∼2.6 ion inertial
lengths (∼269 km), where the field-aligned counter-streaming
electrons were detected and the Hall electromagnetic fields
were identified. An SAW was present in the magnetopause
layer. Remarkably, a KAW was seen in the magnetopause
upstream region after an SAW was encountered. Low-
frequency magnetic field fluctuations were negatively corre-
lated with the changes in the ion and electron velocities at
KAW, but only in the ion velocity at SAW. The wavevector k
was predicted by the multi-spacecraft timing method using
four-point magnetic field measurements. The timing analysis
k
results of k^ , k⊥d, and the wave propagation direction were

satisfied for both the KAW and SAW. In the spacecraft frame,
the wave frequency was ∼0.74 Hz for SAW and ∼0.38 Hz/
∼0.64 Hz for KAW. The parallel Poynting flux carried most of
the wave energy in the KAW and SAW, away from the

4
The Astrophysical Journal, 959:68 (7pp), 2023 December 20 Teh, Zhang, & Fu

Figure 4. The consecutive difference in BL at the four MMS spacecraft for (a) SAW and (c) KAW. The PSD of δBL based on MMS1 is displayed for (b) SAW and (d)
KAW, where the red and black dashed lines denote the spectral peaks, and the proton gyrofrequency is at the green line. The two values of the normalized frequency
correspond to 1 Hz and 10 Hz in the spacecraft frame.

reconnection site. The parallel temperature for ions and
electrons was increased at KAW and the peaks of T∥/T⊥ for
ions were located near the wave peaks, while the ratio peaks for
electrons were near the wave troughs.
It is unexpected that the perturbed fields of the SAW are not
correlated with the electron velocity variations. During the
SAW time interval, strong field-aligned, counter-streaming
electrons were present (Figure 2(a)). This will lead to a non-
Maxwellian distribution in the phase space density. Moreover,
the calculated electron bulk velocity is significantly smaller
than the electron thermal speed (∼4400 km s−1). One may
speculate that the electron bulk velocity may not be accurately
estimated. Thus, this result needs to be interpreted with caution.
The flow speed of the plasma frame is distinct between SAW
and KAW, where the SAW was observed in the faster plasma
frame. In the spacecraft frame, the wave frequency (∼0.74 Hz)
of the SAW is fairly close to that of the KAW at ∼0.64 Hz, and
their Doppler shifts (v · k ) are fairly consistent (∼0.34 Hz).
Since the SAW was in the faster plasma frame as compared to
the KAW, the wavelength of the SAW is expected to be larger
than that of the KAW.
The magnetic energy of the Hall magnetic fields is believed
to be propagating away from the reconnection site by Alfvén
waves. It has been demonstrated in simulations that the Hall
magnetic field structures are carried away by KAWs (Shay
et al. 2011). From a 2D kinetic simulation of magnetotail

5
The Astrophysical Journal, 959:68 (7pp), 2023 December 20
Figure 5. The dispersion relation and frequency vs. k⊥d for (a), (b) SAW and (c), (d) KAW. The color code is the wave power derived from a wavelet transform. The
red dashed line in (a) and (c) denotes the local Alfvén speed at 221 and 394 km s−1, respectively. The cross and triangle results are obtained from a different method.
reconnection with zero guide field, Gurram et al. (2021)
showed that magnetic reconnection can generate both SAWs
and KAWs when an ion-to-electron mass ratio of 400 and open
boundary conditions were implemented and that the SAWs can
become the main carrier of wave energy during reconnection.
In this studied event, both SAW and KAW were detected near
the reconnection X-line, suggesting that KAWS and SAWs can
be generated by asymmetric reconnection with a large
guide field.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the grants of Universiti
Kebangsaan Malaysia (GP-2021-K020730 and GP-K020730).
W.L.T. thanks Stein Haaland for providing a list of
magnetopause crossings by MMS. Special thanks to the
dedicated efforts of the entire MMS mission team for data
access. MMS data can be downloaded at the NASA CDAWeb
at http://cdaweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
6
Teh, Zhang, & Fu
ORCID iDs
Wai-Leong Teh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7114-1543
Wenzhe Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4364-3252
Huishan Fu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4701-7219
References
Burch, J. L., Moore, T. E., Torbert, R. B., & Giles, B. L. 2016, SSRv, 199, 5
Chanteur, G. 1998, ISSIR, 1, 349
Chaston, C. C., Bonnell, J. W., Peticolas, L. M., et al. 2002, GeoRL, 29, 1535
Chaston, C. C., Johnson, J. R., Wilber, M., et al. 2009, PhRvL, 102, 015001
Gershman, D. J., F-Viñas, A., Dorelli, J. C., et al. 2017, NatCo, 8, 14719
Gosling, J. T., McComas, D. J., Roberts, D. A., & Skoug, R. M. 2009, ApJL,
695, L213
Gurram, H., Egedal, J., & Daughton, W. 2021, GeoRL, 48, e94201
Haaland, S., Paschmann, G., Øieroset, M., et al. 2020, JGRA, 125, e27623
Lindqvist, P.-A., Olsson, G., Torbert, R. B., et al. 2016, SSRv, 119, 137
Lysak, R. L. 2023, RvMPP, 7, 6
Paschmann, G., Haaland, S., Sonnerup, B. U. Ö., & Knetter, T. 2013, AnGeo,
31, 871
Pollock, C., Moore, T., Jacques, A., et al. 2016, SSRv, 199, 331
The Astrophysical Journal, 959:68 (7pp), 2023 December 20
Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1990, ComPh, 4, 669
Pritchett, P. L., & Mozer, F. S. 2009, JGRA, 114, A11210
Roberts, O. W., Toledo-Redondo, S., Perrone, D., et al. 2018, GeoRL, 45, 7974
Russell, C. T., Anderson, B. J., Baumjohann, W., et al. 2016, SSRv, 199, 189
Shay, M. A., Drake, J. F., Eastwood, J. P., & Phan, T. D. 2011, PhRvL, 107,
065001
Teh, Zhang, & Fu
Sonnerup, B. U. Ö., & Hasegawa, H. 2005, JGRA, 110, A06208
Teh, W.-L., Nakamura, R., & Fujimoto, M. 2012, JGRA, 117, A12225
Wygant, J. R., Keiling, A., Cattell, C. A., et al. 2002, JGRA, 107, 1201
Vogt, J., Haaland, S., & Paschmann, G. 2011, AnGeo, 29, 2239
Zenitani, S., Shinohara, I., & Nagai, T. 2012, GeoRL, 39, L11102
Zhang, W. Z., Fu, H. S., Cao, J. B., et al. 2022, ApJ, 936, 176