the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Automated Detection of Low-altitude Isolated Mesospheric Radar Echoes Using YOLOv8: Evidence for a C-Layer Phenomenon near 60 km Altitude?
Abstract. The Earth's ionosphere is created by the incident solar radiation and extends from approximately 60 km to 800 km altitude. Within the ionosphere distinct regions are formed based on the number density of the dominant chemical species and their ionization by the incident solar ultraviolet radiation and X rays. The lowermost ionospheric region is called D region and expands during daytime downwards to approximately 60km. In the recent years, rather faint echoes from below the typically continuous D region have been observed during the sunlit period using a 3.17 MHz ground based radar system at polar latitudes. To our knowledge, this study might be the first evidence of such a phenomenon through consistent radar observations. Following an initial manual inspection of the raw data and the corresponding radar image spectra, an automated deep learning approach was employed to detect these isolated low-altitude echoes. We used the pattern recognition tool YOLO (You Only Look Once) to gain statistical information on the occurrence of these radar echoes over four years of radar measurements, which covered conditions ranging from minimum to maximum solar activity. The preferred altitude of these radar echoes is found to be near 58 km with typically little variability, and where the majority of detections show a rather narrow radar spectrum. Substantial annual variability was found for these parameters and the occurrence rate, essentially separating them into summer and winter. The reduced occurrence rates during the solar maximum year 2024 suggest the role of galactic cosmic rays as an ionisation source.
- Preprint
(3142 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1030', David Holdsworth, 18 Mar 2026
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Toralf Renkwitz, 10 Apr 2026
We like to thank the reviewer for the thorough reading of the manuscript and also suggesting many possible improvements. This is certainly much appreciated.
Our answers are attached in the PDF, marked in red. Remaining points that were addressed will be answered separately.
-
RC4: 'Reply on CC1', David Holdsworth, 17 Apr 2026
Thank you Toralf for your response to my comments. Some further comments and clarification follow:
- Regarding the comment in the Hocking & Vincent paper "The peak at 62 km for 2 MHz is a ground echo effect“, apologies for missing this. I thought this was stated in the paper but in my quick scan through the paper when reviewing your paper I missed this! Based on my experience with Buckland Park data I don't agree with that comment, but this has not been refuted in publication so You are right to make this point.
- Regarding my comment on line 252, I meant that I could not make sense of this sentence. It seemed to me that there may be missing words.
I am happy with your responses to my other points.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1030-RC4
-
RC4: 'Reply on CC1', David Holdsworth, 17 Apr 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Yadu Krishnan Krishnakumar, 10 Apr 2026
We appreciate the reviewer's careful reading and constructive suggestions. Our replies (marked in blue) to the remaining comments are provided in the attachment.
-
RC5: 'Reply on AC1', David Holdsworth, 17 Apr 2026
Thanks Yadu for your response to my comments. Including the information you provided in your response in the paper will definitely help the reader who has no ML background understand the technique.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1030-RC5
-
RC5: 'Reply on AC1', David Holdsworth, 17 Apr 2026
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Toralf Renkwitz, 10 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1030', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Mar 2026
The authors present a statistical study of Saura radar echoes from ~58km altitude, classified using the YOLO pattern recognition tool. They argue that these echoes may be caused by ionization from galactic cosmic rays and describe the phenomenon as a potential ‘C-layer’.
I found the preparation of the manuscript to be somewhat sloppy and many of its claims to be exaggerated or speculative. However, the radar detections themselves are interesting and, to my knowledge at least, novel and worthy of publication. Therefore I recommend major revisions for the paper.
The authors should remove any claim of a “C-layer phenomenon” from the title and body of the manuscript. The presentation of the work should be reoriented towards the important central findings (occurrence rates, characteristics etc.) and away from process issues (choice of computer tool etc.) and speculative conclusions.
Major comments:
- Novelty claim is overstated
Previous studies cited by the authors have reported similar low-altitude reflecting layers (e.g., Rasmussen et al., 1980; Bain & Kossey, 1987). The authors should reframe the novelty as systematic detection and characterization rather than first discovery – in particular the term “first evidence” should not be used.
- Physical interpretation is speculative
The proposed link to galactic cosmic rays is not sufficiently supported. Correlations with solar flux are weak and no quantitative ionization modeling is presented.
- Limited training dataset
The YOLO model is trained on only 200 images, which may introduce selection bias and limit generalization.
- Subjective ground truth
Manual labeling introduces subjectivity. Clearer quantitative criteria for LIME identification are needed.
- Single-instrument limitation
All results rely on one radar system, limiting generalizability. How do these results compare to VLF/LF data, or to data from optical/other instruments? A 3 MHz plasma layer (equivalent to 10^5 el. m-3) should be easily visible using ionosonde data, with suitable processing. Particle or FUV data (see e.g. DMSP) could be used to test for energetic precipitation.
- Alternative explanations
Other mechanisms (e.g., turbulence, gravity waves) are not sufficiently explored. How do we know this scattering is really caused by ionization, and that the ionization is unrelated to energetic particle precipitation? Could it be mono-energetic precipitation?
Minor comments:
- Improve figure labeling (units, descriptions etc)
- Clarify uncertainties
- Check spelling and grammar
- why was a ~63-km layer chosen for Fig 1a when the abstract claims most of these are ~58 km? The claim in the abstract should be rephrased in terms of mean and standard deviation of the LIME detection altitude – Fig 9 makes it clear that a relatively broad range of altitudes is present.
- What do the authors make of the apparent October-March (and then June-August) concentration of detections, in terms of physical mechanisms? Doesn’t it look like two separate phenomena, considering also the spectral width variation? If so, maybe two terms are needed rather than just “LIME” for both?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1030-RC2 -
CC2: 'Reply on RC2', Toralf Renkwitz, 10 Apr 2026
We thank the reviewer for the valuable points addressed based on our submitted manuscript. The comments are certainly helpful in improving it for the next revision.
Our answers are attached in the PDF, marked in red. Remaining points that were addressed will be answered separately.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Yadu Krishnan Krishnakumar, 10 Apr 2026
We thank the reviewer for the thorough and constructive comments on our manuscript. The suggestions have been carefully considered and are certainly helpful in improving the revised version. Please find our answers (marked in blue) to the remaining points in the attached PDF.
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1030', Anonymous Referee #3, 16 Apr 2026
“Automated Detection of Low-altitude Isolated Mesospheric Radar Echoes Using YOLOv8: Evidence for a C-Layer Phenomenon near 60 km Altitude?” by Yadu Krishnan Krishnakumar, Toralf Renkwitz, and Andreas Ahrens deals with isolated MF radar echoes in the lower mesosphere in the Arctic. Different from echoes often observed under disturbed conditions by MF radars also in polar lower mesosphere, these echoes are detected under rather quiet conditions. The nature of these echoes and discussion on their possible sources are very interesting and can be worthy of publication in EGUsphere. The description in the manuscript is, however, largely imbalanced, with too much emphasis on the machine learning technique and at the same time lacking sufficient citations to the existing references, technical background of the radar system and also quantitative science discussion. I therefore recommend a major revision before the manuscript becomes suitable for publication.
MAJOR COMMENTS:
A significant part of the manuscript is for the explanation on how to use YOLO and its usefulness in the ‘LIME’ detection. Because EGUsphere is a journal of Earth, Space, and Planetary sciences, the description for the machine learning technique should be more compact and efficiently summarized, and more science discussion should be made instead. That said, I understand that such machine learning techniques are very useful in geoscience studies. If the description of technical details of the machine learning approach is a major point of this work, the paper should be separated into two, one for a technical report and the other one for a science paper.
In the YOLO detection the definition and the threshold of the following values are quite vague probably due to the nature of machine learning approach.
- definition and threshold of LIME, VOID and D region echoes
- height width
- frequency width
- height separation between LIME and D region echoes
Once the detection is made, I would re-evaluate these widths and separation by a fitting technique with a clear threshold setting to avoid vagueness. What the authors claim ‘frequency width’ is the apparent region where the frequency enhancement is seen, not the same with the width related to turbulence activity. It is also not known if the spectral width of MF echoes is a simple measure of turbulence activity. The frequency widening due to turbulence is usually evaluated by a Gaussian fitting to the MST radar spectrum, values evaluated through which are independent of echo intensity. The description around Line 276 is therefore inappropriate although turbulence can affect MF spectra.
In Introduction the authors need to explain more about the history of low altitude mesosphere echo studies in the polar region, especially in winter, adequately referencing previous studies both in the Arctic and Antarctic such as Hall et al. , ACP (2006), Morris et al., GRL (2011), Renkwitz and Latteck (2017), Nishiyama et al. , JGR (2018) and other PMWE related papers before they declare at around the line 38 that they deal with non-EPP type echoes. The authors need to make the differences even clearer between the existing works and the current work if there are such differences. Because the study of low altitude mesosphere echoes in the polar region has a rather long history, readers will be confused and may not be able to understand the most important point the authors claim.
The term LIME introduced in the present study is awfully confusing and inappropriate. Hall et al. (2006) introduced ILME (Isolated Lower Mesosphere Echoes) for MF radar echoes observed under disturbed conditions over Tromsoe (69N), which were thought to be strongly related to VHF radar echoes widely known as PMWEs. LIME and ILME are composed of the initials of exactly the same 4 words with only a different order. The term ILME has been used in the radar studies since Hall et al. and appeared at least in several papers to my knowledge, including Renkwitz and Latteck (2017). According to what the authors claim, these two abbreviations correspond to different background conditions, that is, disturbed and quiet. If so, this confusing naming should be avoided. I also feel that introducing LIME without mentioning Hall et al. (2006) is hugely disrespectful to the late Prof Hall.
The technical details of the Saura MF system are missing, which are only briefly mentioned in Conclusions. It is one of the largest MF radars together with the Adelaide radar, and only large one in the polar region. The sensitivity is thought to be significantly higher than the other existing conventional broad beam systems, making much easier the detection of lower altitude echoes even under non-EPP conditions. The sharp beam operation is also advantageous in suppressing unwanted off-vertical echoes resulting in a better height resolution with much less range smearing. Such technical differences from the conventional systems should be emphasized quantitatively in Introduction to claim the uniqueness of the current study.
The conditions for MF echoes to be detected should be mentioned and discussed more clearly by citing appropriate manuscripts: enough electron density to increase the refractive index, something such as atmospheric turbulences to fluctuate the index, and possibly something to reduce the mobility of ions such as NOx for coherent detection. The difference of O and X modes also needs to be explained together with the reason of selecting X mode in this study (e.g., Renkwitz and Latteck, 2017; Vierinen et al., 2013). While such background information is only very briefly scattered in the present manuscript and mentioned some in Lines 316-321, it should be more collectively summarized, perhaps in Introduction. Additional information on how O mode echoes look like will also be helpful for a better understanding.
Regarding the refractive index fluctuations, turbulence activity is a key as the authors briefly mention. Atmospheric waves are believed to be largely responsible for the turbulence generation. Because of the nature of atmospheric stability, turbulences are generated more preferably at unstable phases of atmospheric waves, not necessarily all through the existing height region of those waves. MST radar observations, usually with better height resolutions than MF radars, often show layered structures as seen in Figure 3 (d) of Nishiyama et al. (2018) (see the two layered structure on May 28, 2013). Keeping this in mind, are there any possibilities that the isolated structure of ‘LIME’ is, at least partly, related to this layered turbulence structure? I presume that under moderately disturbed conditions (weak EPP) an MF radar, especially the sensitive Saura radar, could measure echoes from a wide height region (50-90km) with stronger echoes at unstable heights, resulting in an apparent structure seen as ‘LIME’. The isolated echoes around 55 km of MF radar on May 29, 2013 seen in Figure 3 (c )of Nishiyama et al. (2018) might be such an example, where the MST radar echoes are only weakly detected in Figure 3 (d).
In the VOID areas seen in Figures 1, 4 and 7 of the manuscript, I see weak echoing region between LIME and D region echoes. As I mentioned, this kind of patchy structures are quite common in sharp beam MST radar measurements. So it would also be a case for a powerful high resolution MF radar such as Saura system.
GCRs can be a steady source of the low altitude echoes. References about ionization will be necessary around Line 323. However, the discussion about GCRs is still only speculative. If the same kind of echoes are not detected at other sites, especially at Juliusruh, necessary conditions for MF radar detection may be more quantitatively estimated considering the technical (power/gain) and latitudinal (GCR) differences.
MINOR COMMENTS
For grammatical errors or suggestion, see comments by other reviewers.
Figure 4
Is the grey hatch necessary?
Figure 8
Height width distribution is also wanted together with the separation distribution (VOID width).
Figures 9 and 10
Is the 95 degree measured on the ground? If so, the value will be significantly different in the mesosphere. A clear definition will be wanted to avoid confusion.
Figure 11
What is the maximum value? Detection rates may be more understandable rather than actual number. Does the median mean one of the 4 values corresponding to the 4 years? Why not average?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1030-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 150 | 53 | 15 | 218 | 12 | 21 |
- HTML: 150
- PDF: 53
- XML: 15
- Total: 218
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review of Automated Detection of Low-altitude Isolated Mesospheric Radar Echoes Using YOLOv8: Evidence for a C-Layer Phenomenon near 60 km Altitude?
This paper describes an automated deep learning approach for the detection of faint echoes at altitudes below the D-region as observed by the Saura HF radar. The authors used the pattern recognition tool YOLO (You Only Look Once) to derive statistical information on the occurrence of these radar echoes over four years of radar measurements. The preferred altitude of these radar echoes is found to be near 58 km, with substantial annual variability in the detection rate and altitude and spectral width parameters.
The paper is of significant interest to the ionospheric physics community but requires substantial revision to be acceptable for publication. The main issues are:
It is also peculiar that the authors reference the hypothetical “C-layer” in the title but do mention this layer at all in the article.
My review is divided into two sections. The first section includes issues that the authors need to address before the article is acceptable for publication. The second section includes suggested changes that will improve the readability of the article.
Issues to address
Suggestions for improved readability