article · Kinematics and Physics of Celestial Bodies
This study investigates the ionospheric response to the April 2023 geomagnetic superstorm by analyzing Total Electron Content (TEC) variations over equatorial and low-latitude regions. TEC data derived from GNSS were processed and compared with estimates from the NeQuick model. Geomagnetic indices (Dst, AE, Kp), magnetometer data, and thermospheric $${{\text{O}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\text{O}} {{{{\text{N}}}_{2}}}}} \right. \kern-0em} {{{{\text{N}}}_{2}}}}$$ ratios from GUVI/TIMED observations were used to track storm-time ionospheric changes. TEC was computed from dual-frequency GNSS signals, corrected for biases, and validated using statistical metrics such as RMSE and the Pearson correlation coefficient (R), which ranged from 0.66 to 0.96 across stations and storm phases. The study found both positive and negative storm-time ionospheric effects, with significant regional differences. A notable depletion in the $${{\text{O}} \mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\text{O}} {{{{\text{N}}}_{2}}}}} \right. \kern-0em} {{{{\text{N}}}_{2}}}}$$ ratio corresponded with TEC decreases, emphasizing thermosphere-ionosphere coupling during disturbed periods. This integrated observational and model-based approach highlights complex ionospheric dynamics triggered by geomagnetic superstorms and the value of multi-instrument analysis in space weather research.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.3103/s0884591326010034
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.