GEOMAGNETIC EFFECT OF TURKISH EARTHQUAKE OF JANUARY 24, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/rpra25.04.276

Y. Luo, L. F. Chernogor, K. P. Garmash

Abstract


Purpose:The main cause of geomagnetic disturbances are cosmic sources, processes acting in the solar wind and in the interplanetary medium, as well as large celestial bodies entering the terrestrial atmosphere. Earthquakes (EQs) also act to produce geomagnetic effects. In accordance with the systems paradigm, the Earth–atmosphere–ionosphere–magnetosphere system (EAIMS) constitute a unified system, where positive and negative couplings among the subsystems, as well as feedbacks and precondition among the system components take place. The mechanisms for the action of EQs and processes acting in the lithosphere on the geomagnetic field are poorly understood. It is considered that the EQ action is caused by cracking of rocks, fluctuating motion in the pore fluid, static electricity discharges, etc. In the course of EQs, the seismic, acoustic, atmospheric gravity waves (AGWs), and magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) waves are generated. The purpose of this paper is to describe the magnetic effects of the EQ, which took place in Turkey on 24 January 2020.

Design/methodology/approach: The measurements are taken with the fluxmeter magnetometer delivering 0.5-500 pT sensitivity in the 1-1000 s period range, respectively, and in a wide enough studied frequency band within 0.001 to 1 Hz. The EM-II magnetometer with the embedded microcontroller digitizes the magnetometer signals and performs preliminary filtering over 0.5 s time intervals, while the external flash memory is used to store the filtered out magnetometer signals and the times of their acquisition. To investigate quasi-periodic processes in detail, the temporal variations in the level of the H and D components of the geomagnetic field were applied to the systems spectral analysis, which makes use of the short-time Fourier transform, the wavelet transform using the Morlet wavelet as a basis function, and the Fourier transform in a sliding window with a width adjusted to be equal to a fixed number of harmonic periods.

Findings: The train of oscillations in the level of the D component observed 25.5 h before the EQ on 23 January 2020 is supposed to be associated with the magnetic precursor. The bidirectional pulse in the H component observed on 24 January 2020 could be due to the piston action of the EQ, which had generated an MHD pulse. The quasi-periodic variations in the level of the H and D components of the geomagnetic field, which followed 75 min after the EQ, were caused by a magnetic disturbance produced by the traveling ionospheric disturbances due to the AGWs launched by the EQ. The magnetic effect amplitude was estimated to be close to 0.3 nT, and the quasi-period to be 700-900 s. The amplitude of the disturbances in the electron density in the AGW field was estimated to be about 8 % and the period of 700-900 s. Damping oscillations in both components of the magnetic field were detected to occur with a period of approximately 120 s. This effect is supposed to be due to the shock wave generated in the atmosphere in the course of the EQ.

Conclusions: The magnetic variations associated with the EQ and occurring before and during the EQ have been studied in the
1-1000 s period range.

Key words: earthquake, fluxmeter magnetometer, quasi-periodic disturbance, seismic wave, acoustic-gravity wave, MHD pulse

Manuscript submitted 11.08.2020

Radio phys. radio astron. 2020, 25(4): 276-289

REFERENCES

1. PUDOVKIN, M. I., RASPOPOV, O. M. and KLEIMENOVA, N. G., 1976. Disturbances of the Earth’s Electromagnetic Field. vol. 2. Leningrad, Russia: LGU Publ. (in Russian).

2. GUGLIELMI, A. V., 1979. MHD Waves in Near-Earth Plasma. Moscow, Russia: Nauka Publ. (in Russian).

3. NISHIDA, A., 1980. Geomagnetic Diagnosis of the Magnetosphere. Moscow, Russia: Mir Publ. (in Russian).

4. GUGLIELMI, A. V. and TROITSKAYA, V. A., 1973. Geomagnetic Pulsations and Diagnostics of the Magnetosphere. Moscow, Russia: Nauka Publ. (in Russian).

5. LIKHTER, YA. I., GUGLIELMI, A. V., ERUKHIMOV, L. M. and MIKHAILOVA, G. A., 1988. Wave Diagnostics of Surface Plasma. Moscow, Russia: Nauka Publ. (in Russian).

6. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2012. Geomagnetic Pulsations Accompanied the Solar Terminator Moving Through Magnetoconjugate Region. Radio Phys. Radio Astron. vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 57–66. (in Russian).

7. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2013. Large-Scale Disturbances in the Earth’s Magnetic Field Associated with the Chelyabinsk Meteorite Event. Radiofiz. Electron. vol. 4 (18), no. 3, pp. 47–54. (in Russian).

8. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2014. Geomagnetic field effects of the Chelyabinsk meteoroid. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 54, is. 5, pp. 613–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S001679321405003X

9. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2018. Magnetospheric Effects during the Approach of the Chelyabinsk Meteoroid. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 58, is. 2, pp. 252–265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793218020044

10. BLIOKH, P. V., NIKOLAENKO, A. P. and FILIPPOV, YU. F., 1977. Global Electromagnetic Resonances in the Earth–Ionosphere Cavity. Kiev: Naukova dumka Publ. (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01033918

11. CHEKRYZHOV, V. M., SVIRKUNOV, P. N. and KOZLOV, S. V., 2019. The Influence of Cyclonic Activity on the Geomagnetic Field Disturbance. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 59, is. 1, pp. 53–61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793219010031

12. MARTINES-BEDENKO, V. A., PILIPENKO, V. A., ZAKHAROV, V. I. and GRUSHIN, V. A., 2019. Influence of the Vongfong 2014 hurricane on the ionosphere and geomagnetic field as detected by Swarm satellites: 2. Geomagnetic disturbances. Sol.-Terr. Phys. vol. 5, is. 4, pp. 74–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12737/stp-54201910

13. RIKITAKE, T., ed., 1981. Current research in Earth prediction. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing.

14. GOKHBERG, M. B., MORGUNOV, V. A. and POKHOTELOV, O. A., 1988. Seismoelectromagnetic Phenomena. Moscow, Russia: Nauka Publ. (in Russian).

15. HAYAKAWA, M. and FUJINAWA, Y., eds., 1994. Electromagnetic Phenomena Related to Earthquake Prediction. Tokyo: TERRAPUB.

16. HAYAKAWA, M., ed., 1999. Atmospheric and Ionospheric Electromagnetic Phenomena Associated with Earthquakes. Tokyo: TERRAPUB.

17. SURKOV, V. V., 2000. Electromagnetic Effects Caused by Explosions and Earthquakes. Moscow, Russia: MIFI Publ. (in Russian).

18. HAYAKAWA, M. and MOLCHANOV, O. A., eds., 2002. Seismo Electromagnetics: Lithosphere–Atmosphere–Ionosphere Coupling. Tokyo: TERRAPUB.

19. SOBOLEV, G. A. and PONOMAREV, A. V., 2003. Physics of Earthquakes and Precursors. Moscow, Russia: Nauka Publ. (in Russian).

20. MOLCHANOV, O. A. and HAYAKAWA, M., 2008. Seismo-Electromagnetics and Related Phenomena: History and Latest Results. Tokyo: TERRAPUB.

21. HAYAKAWA, M., ed., 2009. Electromagnetic phenomena associated with earthquakes. Trivandrum, India: Transworld Research Network.

22. HAYAKAWA, M., ed., 2013. Earthquakes prediction studies: seismo electromagnetic. Tokyo: TERRAPUB. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-54367-1

23. SURKOV, V. and HAYAKAWA, M., 2014. Ultra and Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Tokyo, Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht, London: Springer Japan.

24. GOKHBERG, M. B. and SHALIMOV, S. L., 2008. The Impact of Earthquakes and Explosions on the Ionosphere. Moscow, Russia: Nauka Publ. (in Russian).

25. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2012. Physics and Ecology of Disasters. Kharkiv, Ukraine: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Publ. (in Russian).

26. CHERNOGOR, L. F. and GARMASH, K. P., 2018. Magnetospheric and Ionospheric Effects Accompanying the Strongest Technogenic Catastrophe. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 673–685. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793218050031

27. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2009. Radiophysical and Geomagnetic Effects of Rocket Engine Burn: Monograph. Kharkiv, Ukraine: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Publ. (in Russian).

28. CHERNOGOR, L. F. and BLAUNSTEIN, N., 2013. Radiophysical and Geomagnetic Effects of Rocket Burn and Launch in the Near-the-Earth Environment. Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group.

29. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2016. Possibility Action of Rocket and Space Engineering Launches on Earth’s Magnetic Field. In: V. V. Adushkin, S. I. Kozlov, M. V. Sil’nikov, eds. Rocket and Space Engineering Action on Environment. Moscow, Russia: GEOS Publ. (in Russian).

30. CHERNOGOR, L. F., VERTOGRADOV, G. G., URYADOV, V. P., VERTOGRADOVA, E. G. and SHAMOTA, M. A., 2010. Consistent Quasi-Periodic Variations of the Geomagnetic Pulsation Level and Doppler Frequency Shift of Decametric Radio Waves Aspect-Scattered by Artificial Field-Aligned Ionospheric Irregularities. Radiophys. Quantum Electron. vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 688–705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11141-011-9262-z

31. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2014. Physics of High-Power Radio Emissions in Geospace: Monograph. Kharkiv, Ukraine: V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University Publ. (in Russian).

32. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2019. Geomagnetic Disturbances Accompanying the Great Japanese Earthquake of March 11, 2011. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 62–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793219010043

33. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2019. Possible Generation of Quasi-Periodic Magnetic Precursors of Earthquakes. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 374–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S001679321903006X

34. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2003. Physics of Earth, Atmosphere, and Geospace from the Standpoint of System Paradigm. Radio Phys. Radio Astron. vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 59–106. (in Russian).

35. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2006. The Earth – atmosphere – ionosphere – magnetosphere as an open dynamic non-linear physical system. 1. Nelineinyi Mir. vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 655–697. (in Russian).

36. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2007. The Earth – atmosphere – ionosphere – magnetosphere as an open dynamic non-linear physical system. 2. Nelineinyi Mir. vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 198–231. (in Russian).

37. CHERNOGOR, L. F. and ROZUMENKO, V. Т., 2008. Earth – Atmosphere – Geospace as an Open Nonlinear Dynamical System. Radio Phys. Radio Astron. vol. 13, is. 2, pp. 120–137.

38. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2011. The Earth-atmosphere-geospace system: main properties and processes. Int. J. Remote Sens. vol. 32, is. 11, pp. 3199–3218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01431161.2010.541510

39. GUO, Q., CHERNOGOR, L. F., GARMASH, K. P., ROZUMENKO, V. T. and ZHENG, Y., 2019. Dynamical processes in the ionosphere following the moderate earthquake in Japan on 7 July 2018. J. Atmos. Sol.-Terr. Phys. vol. 186, pp. 88–103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2019.02.003

40. LUO, Y., GUO, Q., ZHENG, YU, GARMASH, K. P., CHERNOGOR, L. F. and SHULGA, S. M., 2019. HF radio-wave characteristic variations over China during moderate earthquake in Japan on September 5, 2018. Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National Universit. Ser. Radio Physics and Electronics. vol. 30, pp. 16–26. (in Ukrainian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2311-0872-2019-30-02

41. LUO, Y., GARMASH, K. P., CHERNOGOR, L. F. and SHULGA, S. M., 2019. Geomagnetic field fluctuations during Chuysk earthquakes on September – October, 2003. Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Ser. Radio Physics and Electronics. vol. 31, pp. 87–104. (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.26565/2311-0872-2019-31-09

42. LUO, Y., CHERNOGOR, L. F., GARMASH, K. P., GUO, Q. and ZHENG, YU., 2020. Seismic-Ionospheric Effects: Results of Radio Soundings at Oblique Incidence. Radio Phys. Radio Astron. vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 218–230. (in Ukrainian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15407/rpra25.03.218

43. MOORE, G. W., 1964. Magnetic Disturbances preceding the 1964 Alaska Earthquake. Nature. vol. 203, pp. 508–509. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/203508b0

44. VOROB’EV, A. A., 1970. On the possibility of electric discharges in the Earth’s interiors. Geologiya i Geofizika. no. 12, pp. 3–13. (in Russian).

45. GOGATISHVILI, YA. M., 1984. Geomagnetic precursor of intensive earthquakes in the spectrum of geomagnetic pulsations with frequencies of 1–0.02 Hz. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 697–700. (in Russian).

46. SIDORIN, A. YA., 1992. Earthquake Precursors. Moscow, Russia: Nauka Publ. (in Russian).

47. SOBISEVICH, L. E., KANONIDI, K. KH. and SOBISEVICH, A. L., 2009. Ultra low-frequency electromagnetic disturbances appearing before strong seismic events. Dokl. Earth Sci. vol. 429, no. 5, pp. 1549–1552. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X09090281

48. SOBISEVICH, L. E., SOBISEVICH, A. L. and KANONIDI, K. KH., 2012. Anomalous geomagnetic disturbances induced by catastrophic tsunamigenic earthquakes in the region of Indonesia. Geofizicheskiy Zhurnal. vol. 34, no. 5, pp. 22–37. (in Russian). DOI: 10.24028/gzh.0203-3100.v34i5.2012.116661

49. SOBISEVICH, L. E., KANONIDI, K. KH., SOBISEVICH, A. L. and MISEYUK, O. I., 2013. Geomagnetic Disturbances in the Geomagnetic Field’s Variations at Stages of Preparation and Implementation of the Elazig (March 8, 2010) and M 5.3 (January 19, 2011) Earthquakes in Turkey. Dokl. Earth Sci. vol. 449, no. 1, pp. 324–327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X13030069

50. SOBISEVICH, A. L., STAROSTENKO, V. I., SOBISEVICH, L. E., KENDZERA, A. V., SHUMAN, V. N., VOL’FMAN, YU. M., POTEMKA, E. P., KANONIDI, K. KH. and GARIFULIN, V. A., 2013. The Black Sea earthquakes of late December 2012 and their manifestations in the geomagnetic field. Geofizicheskiy Zhurnal. vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 54–70. (in Russian). DOI: 10.24028/gzh.0203-3100.v35i6.2013.116455

51. SOBISEVICH, L. E., SOBISEVICH, A. L. and KANONIDI, K. KH., 2015. Some anomalous geospheric processes during preparation and development of seismic events. Trigger effects in geospheres. In: V. V. ADUSHKIN and G. G. KOCHARYAN, eds. Proceedings of the Third All-Russian Workshop–Meeting. Moscow, Russia: GEOS Publ. (in Russian).

52. FRASER-SMITH, A. C., BERNARDI, A., MCGILL, P. R., LADD, M. E., HALLIWELL, R. A. and VILLARD, O. G., Jr., 1990. Low-frequency magnetic field measurements near the epicenter of the Ms 7.1 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Geophy. Res. Lett. vol. 17, is. 9, pp. 1465–1468. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/GL017i009p01465

53. CAMPBELL, W. H., 2009. Natural magnetic disturbance fields, not precursors, preceding the Loma Prieta earthquake. J. Geophys. Res. Spase Phys. vol. 114, is. A5, id. A05307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JA013932

54. SHESTOPALOV, I. P., BELOV, S. V., SOLOVIEV, A. A. and KUZMIN, YU. D., 2013. Neutron generation and geomagnetic disturbances in connection with the Chilean earthquake of February 27, 2010 and a volcanic eruption in Iceland in March-April 2010. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 124–135. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793213010179

55. ROMANOVA, N. V., PILIPENKO, V. A. and STEPANOVA, M. V., 2015. On the magnetic precursor of the Chilean earthquake of February 27, 2010, Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 219–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793215010107

56. MOLCHANOV, O. A., KOPYTENKO, YU. A., VORONOV, P. M., KOPYTENKO, E. A., MATIASHVILI, T. G., FRASER-SMITH, A. C. and BERNARDI, A., 1992. Results of ULF magnetic field measurements near the epicenters of the Spitak (Ms=6.9) and Loma Prieta (Ms=7.1) earthquakes: Comparative analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett. vol. 19, is. 14, pp. 1495–1498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/92GL01152

57. KOPYTENKO, YU. A., MATIASHVILI, T. G., VORONOV, P. M., KOPYTENKO, E. A. and MOLCHANOV, O. A., 1993. Detection of ultra-low-frequency emissions connected with the Spitak earthquake and its aftershock activity, based on geomagnetic pulsations data at Dusheti and Vardzia observatories. Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. vol. 77, is. 1-2, pp. 85– 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9201(93)90035-8

58. HAYAKAWA, M., KAWATE, R., MOLCHANOV, O. A. and JUMOTO, K., 1996. Results of ultra-low-frequency magnetic field measurements during the Guam earthquake of 8 August 1993. Geophys. Res. Lett. vol. 23, is. 3, pp. 241–244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/95GL02863

59. SCHEKOTOV, A., FEDOROV, E., HOBARA, Y. and HAYAKAWA, M., 2013. ULF Magnetic Field Depression as a Possible Precursor to the 2011/3.11 Japan Earthquake. J. Atmos. Electr. vol. 33, is. 1, pp. 41–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1541/jae.33.41

60. SCHEKOTOV, A., FEDOROV, E., HOBARA, Y. and HAYAKAWA, M., 2013. ULF magnetic field depression as a possible precursor to the 2011/3.11 Japan earthquake. Radiofiz. Electron. vol. 4(18), no. 1, pp. 47–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1541/jae.33.41

61. FRASER-SMITH, A. C., MCGILL, P. R., HELLIWELL, R. A. and VILLARD, O. G., Jr., 1994. Ultra-low frequency magnetic field measurements in southern California during the Northridge Earthquake of 17 January 1994. Geophys. Res. Lett. vol. 21, is. 20, pp. 2195–2198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/94GL01984

62. KARAKELIAN, D., KLEMPERER, S. L., FRASER-SMITH, A. C. and THOMPSON, G. A., 2002. Ultra-low frequency electromagnetic measurements associated with the 1998 Mw 5.1 San Juan Bautista, California earthquake and implications for mechanisms of electromagnetic earthquake precursors. Tectonophysics. vol. 359, is. 1-2, pp. 65–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1951(02)00439-0

63. FRASER-SMITH, A. C., 2008. Ultralow-Frequency Magnetic Fields Preceding Large Earthquakes. Eos. vol. 89, no. 23, p. 211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2008EO230007

64. PARK, S. K., JOHNSON, M. J. S, MADDEN, T. R., MORGAN, F. D. and MORRISON, H. F., 1993. Electromagnetic precursors to earthquakes in the ULF band: A review of observations and mechanisms. Rev. Geophys. vol. 31, is. 2, pp. 117–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/93RG00820

65. GELLER, R. J., 1997. Earthquake prediction: a critical review. Geophys. J. Int. vol. 131, is. 3, pp. 425–450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246X.1997.tb06588.x

66. BAKUN, W. H., AAGAARD, B., DOST, B., ELLSWORTH, W. L., HARDEBECK, J. L., HARRIS, R. A., JI, C., JOHNSTON, M. J. S., LANGBEIN, J., LIENKAEMPER, J. J., MICHAEL, A. J., MURRAY, J. R., NADEAU, R. M., REASENBERG, P. A., REICHLE, M. S., ROELOFFS, E. A., SHAKAL, A., SIMPSON, R. W. and WALDHAUSER, F., 2005. Implications for prediction and hazard assessment from the 2004 Parkfield earthquake. Nature. vol. 437, pp. 969–974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04067

67. KOSTERIN, N. A., PILIPENKO, V. A. and DMITRIEV, E. M., 2015. On global ultralow frequency electromagnetic signals prior to earthquakes. Geophysical Research. vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 24–34. (in Russian).

68. BAKHMUTOV, V. G., SEDOVA, F. I. and MOZGOVAYA, T. A., 2003. Morphological analysis of geomagnetic variations in preparation period of the strongest earthquake of 25 March 1998 in Antarctic. Ukrainian Antarktic Journal. no. 1, pp. 54–60. (in Russian).

69. SURKOV, V. V. and PILIPENKO, V. A., 1997. Magnetic effects due to earthquakes and underground explosions: a review. Ann. Geophys. vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 227–239. DOI: 10.4401/ag-3904

70. GUGLIELMI, A. V., 2007. Ultra-low-frequency electromagnetic waves in the Earth’s crust and magnetosphere. Phys.-Uspekhi. vol. 50, is. 12, pp. 1197–1216. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1070/PU2007v050n12ABEH006413

71. PULINETS, S. A., OUZOUNOV, D. P., KARELIN, A. V. and DAVIDENKO, D. V., 2015. Physical bases of the generation of short-term earthquake precursors: A complex model of ionization-induced geophysical processes in the lithosphere-atmosphere-ionosphere-magnetosphere system. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 55, is. 4, pp. 521–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793215040131

72. CHERNOGOR, L. F., 2008. Advanced Methods of Spectral Analysis of Quasiperiodic Wave-Like Processes in the Ionosphere: Specific Features and Experimental Results. Geomagn. Aeron. vol. 48, is. 5, pp. 652–673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0016793208050101

73. KULICHKOV, S. N., 1992. Long-range sound propagation in the atmosphere (Review). Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk, Izvestiia, Fizika Atmosfery i Okeana. vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 339–360. (in Russian).

74. Le PICHON, A., BLANC, E. and HAUCHECORNE, A., eds., 2010. Infrasound monitoring for atmospheric studies. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Int. Publ. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9508-5



Keywords


earthquake; fluxmeter magnetometer; quasi-periodic disturbance; seismic wave; acoustic-gravity wave; MHD pulse

Full Text:

PDF


Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) .