# Ion Composition and Electron Pitch Angle Variations for Interchange Events in Jupiter's Inner Magnetosphere

M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci, M. Blanc, J. Szalay, Z.-y. Liu, E. Penou, P.

Louarn, F. Allegrini, R. Ebert, et al.

► To cite this version:

M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci, M. Blanc, J. Szalay, et al. Ion Composition and Electron Pitch Angle Variations for Interchange Events in Jupiter's Inner Magnetosphere. Geophysical Research Letters, 2025, 52 (20), 10.1029/2025GL116114. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gRL2025-52

HAL Id: hal-05378552

https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-05378552v1

Submitted on 24 Nov 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

# Geophysical Research Letters®

## RESEARCH LETTER

10.1029/2025GL116114

**Key Points:**

* We report multi-instrument observations from Juno of nine plasma depleted flux tubes between M-shells 5 and 10 in the Jovian magnetosphere

* Based on JADE data, we confirm their significant depletion in heavy ions and low energy protons and electrons

* We estimate the location where the electron distributions of the flux tubes were isotropic using adiabatic transport theory

**Supporting Information:**

Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

**Correspondence to:**

M. Devinat,
marie.devinat@irap.omp.eu

**Citation:**

Devinat, M., André, N., Vinci, G., Blanc, M., Szalay, J. R., Liu, Z.-Y., et al. (2025). Ion composition and electron pitch angle variations for interchange events in Jupiter's inner magnetosphere.
*Geophysical Research Letters*, 52, e2025GL116114. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025GL116114

Received 26 MAR 2025
Accepted 28 SEP 2025

**Author Contributions:**

**Conceptualization:** M. Devinat,
N. André, G. Vinci, M. Blanc

**Data curation:** M. Devinat, J. R. Szalay, Z.-Y. Liu, E. Penou, P. Louarn, F. Allegrini, R. W. Ebert, P. W. Valek, F. Bagenal, R. J. Wilson, J.-Z. Wang, W. S. Kurth, B. H. Mauk, G. A. DiBraccio, J. E. P. Connerney

**Formal analysis:** M. Devinat

**Funding acquisition:** N. André, G. Vinci, P. Louarn, F. Allegrini

**Investigation:** M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci, M. Blanc, Z.-Y. Liu, Q. Nénon

**Methodology:** M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci

© 2025. The Author(s).
This is an open access article under the
terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License, which permits use,
distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## Ion Composition and Electron Pitch Angle Variations for Interchange Events in Jupiter's Inner Magnetosphere

M. Devinat¹, N. André¹,², G. Vinci³, M. Blanc¹,⁴, J. R. Szalay⁵, Z.-Y. Liu¹, Q. Nénon⁶, E. Penou¹, P. Louarn¹, F. Allegrini⁷,⁸, R. W. Ebert⁷,⁸, P. W. Valek⁷, F. Bagenal⁹, R. J. Wilson⁹, J.-Z. Wang⁹, W. S. Kurth¹⁰, B. H. Mauk¹¹, Y. Wang¹²,¹³,¹⁴, G. A. DiBraccio¹⁵, J. E. P. Connerney¹⁵,¹⁶, and S. J. Bolton⁸

¹Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie, CNRS-UPS-CNES, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France,

²Institut Supérieur de l'Aéronautique et de l'Espace (ISAE-SUPAERO), Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France,

³University of Bologna-DIN, Bologna, Italy, ⁴Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, Aix-Marseille Université, Marseille, France, ⁵Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA, ⁶Laboratoire Atmosphères, Observations Spatiales, CNRS-Sorbonne Université-CNES, Paris, France, ⁷Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, USA, ⁸Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA, ⁹Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA, ¹⁰Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA, ¹¹The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, USA, ¹²State Key Laboratory of Space Weather, National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, CAS, Beijing, China, ¹³Key Laboratory of Solar Activity and Space Weather, National Space Science Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, ¹⁴College of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China, ¹⁵NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, USA, ¹⁶Space Research Corporation, Annapolis, MD, USA

**Abstract** The outward transport of plasma and magnetic fluxes in the gas giant magnetospheres is balanced with a return flow of flux tubes emptied through magnetic reconnection. Evidence of interchange motions between inward and outward moving flux tubes have long been reported around Jupiter and Saturn. Although amply documented at Saturn, the lack of useable low energy plasma data has prevented the analysis of their plasma properties at Jupiter. The Juno data sets allow us to characterize the plasma populations inside nine interchange events at Jupiter between M-shells 5 and 10. We confirm that they are strongly depleted in heavy ions and low energy protons and electrons, but filled with higher energy protons and electrons. We model the pitch-angle distribution of trapped electrons through adiabatic transport and estimate that the reported flux tubes were likely isotropic between M-shells 11 and 35. The observed features bear strong similarities with their Kronian counterparts.

**Plain Language Summary** The innermost Galilean moon of Jupiter, Io, is the dominant source of plasma in the Jovian system. Jupiter's magnetosphere is filled with plasma that expands from Io into an equatorial plasma disk and spreads out into the magnetosphere. Theoretical descriptions require that this outward flow be balanced by an inward flow to conserve magnetic flux. Thin, localized, flux tubes (regions of space enclosing constant magnetic flux) with enhanced magnetic pressure have long been detected in the Jovian and Kronian magnetospheres and interpreted as agents for the required return circulation, but the previous lack of plasma data at Jupiter has prevented the analysis of their properties. Here we present observations of nine such flux tubes using Juno plasma observations. We confirm their plasma-depleted nature and trace back their evolution during adiabatic inward transport. The observed features bear strong similarities with their Kronian counterparts.

## 1. Introduction

The innermost Galilean moon in the Jovian magnetosphere, Io, is a centerpiece of its dynamics, together with the fast planetary rotation and strong magnetic field. Its continuous production of gas (Bagenal & Delamere, 2011) leads, after ionization and action of the centrifugal force due to the fast rotation of Jupiter, to the formation of a magnetized plasma disk extending up to 50 Jovian radii in all directions in the equatorial plane. Theoretical description of the Vasyliūnas plasma cycle (Vasyliūnas, 1983) suggests that the cold, dense plasma injected at Io's location mainly consists of heavy ions and is transported outwards to the outer magnetosphere where it is expelled from the system through magnetic reconnection. Newly reconnected flux tubes are then recycled in the system
**Project administration:** N. André, G. Vinci, P. Louarn, F. Allegrini, S. J. Bolton

**Resources:** M. Devinat, J. R. Szalay, Z.-Y. Liu, E. Penou, P. Louarn

**Software:** J. R. Szalay, Z.-Y. Liu, E. Penou, P. Louarn

**Supervision:** N. André, G. Vinci, M. Blanc, J. R. Szalay

**Validation:** M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci, R. W. Ebert, P. W. Valek, F. Bagenal, R. J. Wilson, J.-Z. Wang, W. S. Kurth, B. H. Mauk

**Visualization:** M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci

**Writing – original draft:** M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci

**Writing – review & editing:** M. Devinat, N. André, G. Vinci, M. Blanc, J. R. Szalay, Z.-Y. Liu, Q. Nénon, E. Penou, F. Allegrini, R. W. Ebert, P. W. Valek, F. Bagenal, R. J. Wilson, J.-Z. Wang, W. S. Kurth, B. H. Mauk, Y. Wang

through a return flow of emptied flux tubes, allowing for magnetic flux and angular momentum conservation (Ferrière et al., 2001; Hill, 1979; Russell et al., 2000). Due to their more localized nature and possibly faster motion (Rymer et al., 2008), inward-moving magnetic flux tubes and their charged particle content could be easier to trace than the general outward-moving plasma (Burch et al., 2007) (though some examples of outward-moving tubes observations are available, e.g. Thomsen et al. (2015)). The former can be used to characterize the latter, and from there, the whole Jovian plasma cycle.

Detection of high magnetic pressure flux tubes in the Jovian magnetosphere can be traced back to 1997 (Bolton et al., 1997; Kivelson et al., 1997; Thorne et al., 1997) with Galileo observations, and 2005 at Saturn with Cassini observation (André et al., 2005; Burch et al., 2005; Hill et al., 2005). They are characterized by a duration shorter than a few tens of seconds, clear magnetic field perturbations, and, at Saturn, a depletion in low-energy plasma, corresponding to what is now called *interchange event*, in opposition to *injection events* with longer durations (30 min), no clear magnetic field perturbation (B. H. Mauk et al., 1999) and possibly no depletion in low-energy protons (Nichols et al., 2023). Observations of high magnetic pressure flux tubes were interpreted as plasma-depleted inward moving flux tubes. At Jupiter, statistical distributions and occurrence rates were derived by Russell et al. (2005), however the characterization of their properties had proved difficult with Galileo, due to technical issues limiting the resolution of the available data. On the other hand, the Kronian magnetosphere appeared to be a rich laboratory for the study of such events (André et al., 2007; Leisner et al., 2005), with various examples of statistical analyses providing spatial distributions and occurrence rates (André et al., 2005; Azari et al., 2018; H. R. Lai et al., 2016; H. Lai et al., 2021), or case studies on the plasma content, dating, and derivation of the birthplaces of plasma-depleted flux tubes at Saturn. Among them, Thomsen et al. (2014) quantified the relative abundances of heavy ions in plasma-depleted flux tubes and derived their birthplace by comparison with published abundance ratios. Rymer et al. (2008, 2009) developed a model for the evolution of the phase-space density of trapped particle and applied it to trace back the origin of a couple of events. Finally, Hill et al. (2005) used energy dispersion signature to determine the age of interchange events.

The Juno mission has provided new opportunities to characterize the small scale dynamics of the Jovian magnetosphere thanks to the spatial and temporal high resolution of its low energy plasma observations. However, the most recent surveys on interchanging flux tube signatures focused on wave diagnostics (Daly et al., 2023, 2024; Kurth et al., 2023). In the present paper we complement the effort toward a better description of interchanging flux tubes with emphasis on their plasma properties, combining Juno ion and electron data. In Section 3, we present our detection and selection method. Section 4.1 investigates the properties of the selected flux tubes with a focus on their ion composition. In Section 4.2, we then model their electron pitch-angle distributions and trace back the distributions inside the flux tubes along their journey from the outer to the inner regions of the Jovian magnetosphere. We finally discuss our observations and their implications in Section 5.

## 2. Data and Method

We based our detection and analysis of interchange events on four instruments from the Juno spacecraft which has been orbiting around Jupiter since 2016. We first used magnetic field observations obtained by the Juno fluxgate magnetometer (FGM; Connerney et al. (2017)) with a time resolution of 1 s. Higher time resolution data was not used because the detection of events is based on multi-instrument signature (cf. Section 3) and is limited by the time resolution of the waves and plasma instruments, which are both higher than 1s, as explained later in this Section. The magnetic field intensity was detrended in two steps: a first subtraction of the JRM33 (Connerney et al., 2022) plus CON2020 (Connerney et al., 2020) magnetic models from the observations, and a second detrend of the resulting residuals through the subtraction of a sliding 5-min average. The magnetic field data was not corrected from the effect of the 30 s spin period of the Juno spacecraft to preserve data integrity (as suggested by Salveter et al. (2025)). The residual modulation is carefully observed during our selection and analysis, and is unlikely to impact them because interchange signatures are different from spin modulation (they are not periodic, exhibit sharper variations, and affect the magnetic field, particle and waves observations). The detrended magnetic field time series were used for the detection of events and the definition of their boundaries, together with magnetic (Waves-B) and electric (Waves-E) spectral measurements obtained by the Juno waves instrument (Waves; Kurth et al. (2017)) between 50 Hz and 20 kHz and between 50 Hz and 150 kHz, respectively.

Low energy charged particle data were provided by the Jovian Auroral Distributions Experiment (JADE; McComas et al. (2017)) which includes an ion mass spectrometer (JADE-I) and two electron spectrometers
(JADE-E). The JADE-I time resolution is 2 s and the JADE-E time resolutions ranges from 1 to 30 s depending on the time of the measurements. The JADE-I energy per charge and mass coverages range from 13 eV/q to 46 keV/q and from 1 amu/q to 64 amu/q, respectively. The JADE-E energy coverage ranges from either 100 eV to 100 keV, 50 eV to 100 keV or 32 eV to 32 keV, depending on the time of the measurements. JADE-E and JADE-I energy-time spectrograms averaged over all pitch-angles were both used for the detection of events (cf. Section 3 for a description of the selection criteria and their limitations.). JADE-I SPECIES and TOF data products were used to analyze composition variations within the events, 10 min before and 10 min after (Section 4.1). The TOF data product has high mass resolution (93 TOF bands) and the SPECIES data product has high angular resolution with coarse mass resolution. Finally, the Juno Jupiter Energetic particle Detector Instrument (JEDI; B. H. Mauk et al., 2017) provided us with energy-time and pitch-angle-time spectrograms of 30–900 keV electrons with a time resolution of 2 s, which we used to analyze the source region of the events (Section 4.2).

### 3. Detection, Survey, and Event Selection

Our surveyed domain was spatially restricted to M-shells between 5 and 10 and magnetic latitudes (tilted by 10.31° toward System III (Dessler, 1983 defines the SIII frame with the Z-axis aligned with the planet spin axis, the X-axis pointing toward Earth at 00UT on January 1st, 1957, and rotating counterclockwise around the Z axis with a period of 9 hr 55 m 29.37, and the Y-axis completing the direct XYZ frame. We define the SIII longitude as the right-handed longitude in this frame) longitude 196.61°, Connerney et al. (2018) between -35° and 35°, and temporally restricted to perijoves (PJ) up to PJ50. M-shell refers to the distance of the magnetic field-line apex, apex being defined as the location of minimum magnetic field strength along the given field-line. M-shell values are computed with the JRM33 + CON2020 magnetic field model using Rabia et al. (2024)'s method (Rabia et al., 2024) developed a lighter and faster version of the Community Code (James et al., 2024; Wilson et al., 2023), based on its analytic version. We used it with the averaged parameter values of the Connerney et al. (2020) current sheet model). The spatial and temporal limits were chosen so as to probe a similar magnetospheric domain as previous surveys (Daly et al., 2024; Kurth et al., 2023; Russell et al., 2005). In this time and space domain, we selected events showing at least three simultaneous unambiguous signatures among the following ones:

1. increase of the magnetic field intensity over the noise level in less than 5s, followed by a similar decrease after a duration smaller than 10 min in Juno/FGM time series;

2. decrease of electron fluxes by more than the noise level in less than 5 s, followed by a similar increase after a duration smaller than 10 min in Juno/JADE-E energy-time spectrograms;

3. increase in the energy of the electron population in Juno/JADE-E energy-time spectrograms;

4. decrease by more than the noise level in less than 5 s, followed by a similar increase after a duration smaller than 10 min of the proton fluxes in Juno/JADE-I energy-time spectrograms;

5. increase in the energy of the proton population in Juno/JADE-I energy-time spectrograms;

6. missing Electron Cyclotron Harmonics band in the Juno/Waves-E frequency-time spectrograms;

7. apparition of new bands in the Juno/Waves-E and Juno/Waves-B frequency-time spectrograms.

Those signatures are illustrated in Figure 1 for one of the detected events showing the most comprehensive catalog of signatures: all signatures are observed, except the increase in electron energy in JADE-E spectrograms which is however visible in the JEDI energy range (not shown). Signature 1, 2, 4, and 6 are indicative of regions of space with enhanced magnetic pressure and lower plasma pressure with respect to the ambient environment, while signatures 3 and 5 are consistent with plasma populations being heated either adiabatically while transported inward, or non-adiabatically during intense phenomena such as reconnection and signature six is indicative of perturbed plasma states.

Our catalog contains 35 events distributed over our whole M-shells range. Eight of them were already reported by Daly et al. (2024). The 27 new events identified in our survey are all but one shorter than 20 s, the lower duration limit they used in their survey. The complete list of all 35 events is available in Supporting Information S1. The present survey has various limitations due to the nature and processing of data. First, the time resolution of the plasma data is, at best, 1 s, which prevents the detection of events shorter than a few seconds. Second, we only detect events with duration smaller than 10 min (signature 1), however we argue that this does not introduce a strong limitation in our selection, first because most interchange event at Jupiter and Saturn were shown to last for less than 10 min (Azari et al., 2018; Daly et al., 2024; H. Lai et al., 2021), but also because our final catalog
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Multi-instrument observations of a plasma-depleted magnetic flux tube observed by Juno on 17 February 2020 between 12:23:49 and 12:25:25: (a) time series of the measured Juno/FGM magnetic field intensity (in black), and detrended magnetic field intensity (in blue, see Section 2), though uncorrected from the spin modulation; (b) Juno/JADE-I SP3 energy-time spectrogram of proton counts; (c) combination of Juno/JADE-E60 and Juno/JADE-E180 energy-time spectrograms of electron counts; frequency-time spectrogram of the electrical components of Juno/Waves-E in the higher (d) and lower (e) frequency ranges; (f) frequency-time spectrogram of the magnetic component of Juno/Waves-B.</figcaption></figure>

successfully recovers that of Daly et al. (2024). The 5-min sliding average of the magnetic field intensity is long enough so as to not suppress the magnetic field features associated to plasma-depleted flux tubes, most importantly the sharp increase/decrease in magnetic field strength over timescales of second, and is therefore not a limitation to their detection.

In order to analyze more specifically plasma properties, we selected, among our complete catalog, nine events showing more than two JADE time samples and with a clear difference in the magnetic, ion and electron regimes inside and outside of the event. These additional criteria ensured, first, enough statistics inside the flux tubes, and second, that the flux tube and background properties are not mixed in the analysis. We refer the reader to the
<table><caption>**Table 1**

Properties of the Nine Events Included in Our Final Catalog</caption><thead><tr><th>Event</th><th>Start time (UT)</th><th>Stop time (UT)</th><th>PJ</th><th>Mshell</th><th>λ<sub>SIII</sub> (°)</th><th>φ<sub>SIII</sub> (°)</th><th>λ<sub>cent</sub> (°)</th><th>LT (h)</th><th>Detected signatures</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>2018-07-16T01:08:45</td><td>01:09:45</td><td>14</td><td>8.7</td><td>32.22</td><td>254.53</td><td>36.16</td><td>02.02</td><td>1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2018-07-16T01:10:44</td><td>01:11:17</td><td>14</td><td>8.7</td><td>32.37</td><td>253.30</td><td>36.43</td><td>02.02</td><td>1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>2019-04-06T05:06:56</td><td>05:08:15</td><td>19</td><td>9.3</td><td>19.09</td><td>330.76</td><td>14.57</td><td>00.76</td><td>1, 2, 4, 5</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>2019-04-06T05:35:30</td><td>05:38:05</td><td>19</td><td>9.0</td><td>20.17</td><td>313.26</td><td>17.52</td><td>00.74</td><td>1, 2, 3, 4, 5</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>2020-02-17T12:23:49</td><td>12:25:25</td><td>25</td><td>9.2</td><td>18.40</td><td>225.10</td><td>24.62</td><td>22.94</td><td>1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>2022-01-12T03:33:32</td><td>03:33:45</td><td>39</td><td>8.9</td><td>6.27</td><td>338.52</td><td>1.07</td><td>19.95</td><td>1, 4, 6, 7</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>2022-01-12T03:34:25</td><td>03:34:35</td><td>39</td><td>8.9</td><td>6.30</td><td>337.98</td><td>1.15</td><td>19.95</td><td>1, 4, 6, 7</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>2022-01-12T03:35:09</td><td>03:35:41</td><td>39</td><td>8.9</td><td>6.33</td><td>337.54</td><td>1.22</td><td>19.95</td><td>1, 4, 6</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>2022-01-12T03:37:01</td><td>03:37:31</td><td>39</td><td>8.9</td><td>6.40</td><td>336.40</td><td>1.39</td><td>19.95</td><td>1, 4, 5</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Note.* From left to right: start and stop time of the interchange injection event (in UT), perijove number, M-shell, SIII latitude, SIII longitude, centrifugal latitude, and local time. The last column lists the signatures used to select each event, as enumerated in Section 3. All angles are provided in degrees, local time is in hours.

Supporting Information S2 for a complete list of available observations of all nine events and to the last column of Table 1 for a list of detected signatures as enumerated previously. Table 1 summarizes the properties of the selected events. The first two events were analyzed by Kurth et al. (2023) and Daly et al. (2023), with a focus on the Waves properties. None of the nine events were located inside M-shells 8, probably due to the lower availability of JADE data in the innermost regions and more ambiguous signatures. Interestingly, we detect signatures over a wide range of latitudes: from 0° to 33° Jovicentric SIII latitudes, and from -6° to 36° centrifugal latitudes (computed from the centrifugal equator as defined by Phipps and Bagenal (2021)). All events were detected between 253° and 340° SIII longitudes, and from 19 to 02 hr in local time. Most interchange events appeared isolated and their duration, as measured by Juno, was longer than a minute, except in 2018 and 2022 when we observed them in sequences of 2–4 events of shorter duration.

# 4. Analysis

## 4.1. Ion Composition

Figure 2 shows the ion composition of the 17 February 2020 event introduced in Figure 1, based on the analysis of the JADE-I SPECIES (SP3, corresponding to protons) and TOF data products. Comparing proton energy distributions inside and outside the event from SPECIES data, we observe a clear depletion in protons with energies between 50 eV and about 10 keV inside the event, whereas protons with energies higher than 10 keV have similar intensity inside and outside the event (panel b, Figure 2). Similarly, a depletion in electrons around 100 eV is observed in panel c of Figure 1. TOF data (panels c–e, Figure 2) confirm this observation, showing a drop in the low energy proton flux inside the event, while the proton flux at energies higher than 1 keV are still present. We additionally observe that although ions with mass per charge 8, 10.7, and 16 are present in the background plasma, they are not detected inside the event, neither in the JADE nor in the JEDI data (not shown here), suggesting that the magnetic flux tube is almost completely devoid of heavy ions.

This trend is observed in most of the events included in our catalog (cf. Supporting Information S3), except four short events in 2022. These composition observations clearly show that these magnetic flux tubes are strongly depleted in heavy ions and filled with a less dense, energized proton population. It is reminiscent of the measurement of lower heavy-to-proton density ratios by Liu et al. (2024) in the outer regions of the magnetosphere. Both observations are consistent with the scenario of flux tubes traveling from the outer magnetosphere inwards, thus showing a heavy-depleted plasma compared to the background medium.

## 4.2. Electron Pitch-Angle Distributions

The electron pitch-angle distributions are measured in the energy channel of JEDI where the maximum count rates are detected for all events except the two 2018 events. For the latter, JEDI data are not available so the electron pitch-angle distributions are measured instead in the energy channel of JADE-E where the maximum
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2.</figcaption></figure>
count rate is detected. All the corresponding energy channels are provided in Figure 3 (top-left of each panel) and Table S1. This ensures the maximum sensitivity and the best statistics for the measurement, which is necessary due to the relatively low intensities measured inside the flux tubes. We combine the pitch-angle distributions of the shorter events detected in sequence on 16 July 2018 (two events between 01:08 UT and 01:12 UT) and 12 January 2022 (four events between 03:33 UT and 03:38 UT), taking the median of all pitch-angle distribution inside the two and the four events respectively. This assumes that the properties of temporally close events are similar, meaning that they share similar origins. It allows us to increase the statistics for those shorter events. We show the electron pitch-angle distributions measured inside six events (2 isolated and 4 merged ones) in Figure 3. Data points measured at each time step are shown in gray dots, and their median is shown in black dots.

Based on the electron pitch-angle distributions shown in Figure 3, and assuming that, prior to their observation by Juno, the flux tubes experienced an inward adiabatic motion from a source located farther outwards, we model the evolution of the trapped electron distribution during this inward transport. Adiabatic transport is a strong assumption which requires that we neglect electron scattering and energy diffusion processes. Despite this limitation, it is commonly adopted in studies on sources, losses, and transport of energetic particles, and has been shown to be compatible with the distribution of charged particles with energy higher than 200 keV (Kollmann et al., 2018; Sarkango et al., 2023). It allows us to derive the magnetospheric location $M_{iso}$ where the electron population inside the flux tube were isotropic. Based on the adiabatic assumption, Rymer et al. (2008) developed a formalism to describe the phase-space density of electrons in plasma-depleted flux tubes at Saturn, using a dipolar magnetic field. We adapt their model to the Jovian JRM33 + CON2020 magnetic field configuration (Connerney et al., 2020, 2022), as described in Text S4 in Supporting Information S4 and implemented in Devinat (2025). The model is fitted to median electron pitch-angle distributions through two parameters: the M-shell $M_{iso}$ at which electrons inside the flux tube are isotropic, and the initial amplitude of the phase-space distribution. The electron spectral slope is estimated from the JEDI energy distribution (except for the 2018 events, when JADE-E was used) and the derived spectral indices are summarized in Table S4.1 in Supporting Information S4, along with the starting values of $M_{iso}$ used for the fit.

The best fitting curves are shown in Figure 3 for the median electron pitch-angle distributions measured in the flux tubes (solid black line) and the corresponding values for $M_{iso}$ are indicated on the top right of each panel along with the M-shells $M$ at which the events were detected. Isotropic M-shell values $M_{iso}$ range from 11.2 to 34.4. From $M_{iso}$, the electron population would have evolved to have more energy distributed perpendicular to the magnetic field as the flux tube moved inwards.

Three additional events (1 isolated and 2 merged ones, not shown), on 16 July 2018 and on 17 February 2020 are located at centrifugal latitudes above 20° (cf. Table 1), at large distances from the center of the magnetodisk, and the corresponding electron pitch angle distributions could not be reproduced by our model. This was due, for the 16 July 2018 events, to a lack of electron pitch-angle coverage in the data (see Figure 3, first panel). Interestingly, the 17 February 2020 event shows clear pancake electron pitch-angle distributions, whereas our adiabatic transport model predicts that electron pitch-angle distributions inevitably flatten at such high latitudes.

## 5. Discussion and Conclusions

This letter reports observations of inward transporting interchange events in the Jovian magnetosphere between M-shells 5 and 10. Based on JADE-I data, the ion-depleted nature of the observed flux tubes is confirmed, suggesting that these events likely correspond to the return flow of magnetic flux tubes, emptied from their logenic material. This finding is reminiscent of previous studies on Kronian events (Thomsen et al., 2014). The detection of depleted flux tubes below M-shell 10 is consistent with large scale numerical simulations of the Jovian magnetosphere showing that light and hot plasma can penetrate inward to the innermost magnetosphere

**Figure 2.** Composition of the 17 February 2020 event. Panel (a) shows the magnetic field intensity (in black) and the detrended magnetic field intensity (see Section 2) with orange dots inside the event and blue dots outside of it. Panel (b) shows JADE-I energy spectra from the SPECIES SP3 data product, averaged inside the event (in orange) and outside of it over a 10 min window centered on it (blue). The darker data points correspond to the median distributions inside and outside of it. The TOF data are provided in panels (i)–(iii), integrated over 10 min before the event (i), over the duration of the event (ii), and over 10 min after it (iii). Each TOF panel shows the flux (in count.s⁻¹) as a function of time of flight (in ns), and energy per charge (in keV.e⁻¹, where e is the charge of a proton). The gray lines show the location of peak count rate for $H^+$ (M/q = 1); $H_2^+$, $He^{2+}$ (M/q = 2); $H_3^+$ (M/q = 3); $He^+$ (M/q = 4); $O^{3+}$ (M/q = 5.3); $O^{2+}$ (M/q = 8); $S^{3+}$ (M/q = 10.7); $O^+$, $S^{2+}$ (M/q = 16); $S^+$, $O_2^+$ (M/q = 32); from left to right.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 3.** Electron pitch-angle distributions of six isolated and merged events included in our final catalog. Fluxes are normalized to the total integrated flux over all pitch-angles. The 2019 events (panels a and b) show pancake electron pitch-angle distributions and the 2022 events (panel c) show nearly isotropic distributions at high energies. The electron pitch-angle distributions measured at every individual JEDI time samples are shown with gray dots. Their medians are shown in black dots and are fitted with the model described in Section 4.2 and Text S4 in Supporting Information S4 and adapted from Rymer et al. (2008) (solid black line).</figcaption></figure>

(Tanaka et al., 2021; Y. Wang et al., 2023). However those global simulations are currently unable to capture the scale of interchange events. Spacecraft observations could serve as a constraint to improve numerical simulations, both in term of plasma properties, and in terms of the shape, size (e.g., Yin et al. (2023)) and occurrence of interchanging cell. Similarly to Russell et al. (2005) and contrary to the result of large scale simulations (Y. Wang et al., 2023), we observe that interchange events are rare in the Jovian magnetosphere, though a quantitative estimate is not possible given our stringent selection criteria and the partial survey done in our study.

Based on an adiabatic transport model, we traced back the observed electron pitch-angle distribution out in the magnetosphere. The observed features bear strong similarities with their Kronian counterparts, pointing to an analogous nature of plasma and magnetic flux circulation in the two gas giant magnetospheres. We computed, for each event or group of events, the location $M_{iso}$ in the magnetosphere where the electron distribution inside the flux tube would have been isotropic. We found that, depending on the event considered, this location can range from M-shell 11 to 35. This result can be compared with the statistical analysis of electron distributions in the background plasma by Ma et al. (2021). They showed in their Figure 3 that the 100 keV background electron distribution is preferentially pancake-like inside of M-shell 12, and isotropic or field-aligned outside of this limit, while our observations suggest that the electron population with similar energy in plasma-depleted flux tube is pancake-like up to M-shell about 35. Statistical analyses based on larger samples of plasma-depleted flux tube
observations such as the catalog published by Daly et al. (2024) are required to feed the comparison between background and inward-traveling plasma.

The pitch-angle model shown here could provide hints at the likely distribution of electrons in the source of interchange events, depending on its location in the Jovian magnetosphere. In their description of the plasma cycle, Vasyliūnas (1983) and Dungey (1961) suggest that reconnection in the tail could form emptied flux tubes or trigger their formation. Vasyliūnas (1983) reports that reconnection events preferentially happen in the tail of the magnetosphere between 40 and 150 $R_J$. Vogt et al. (2010, 2020) similarly report tail reconnection signatures with Galileo and Juno down to 33 $R_J$. This classical view has recently been enriched with additional Juno observations, first with the detection by Zhao et al. (2024) of reconnection signatures on the day-side of the Jovian magnetosphere between 30 and 40 $R_J$, then with the detection by J.-Z. Wang et al. (2025) of super-corotating flows at about 25 $R_J$ that may arise from internally driven reconnection, thus happening deeper inside the magnetosphere than previously reported. The 35 events we detected are localized on the night-side, however information is lacking on their age and the azimuthal velocity to properly determine their local-time of creation. Assuming, as in Rymer et al. (2009), that the population of trapped electrons is isotropic at the creation of the flux tube, our subset of nine events points to a creation region between M-shell 11 and 35, inside of the reconnection region previously reported. Louarn et al. (2014) showed that, instead of directly producing plasma-depleted flux-tubes, reconnection events as observed by spacecraft could rather destabilize the Jovian magnetosphere and trigger small scale formation of interchange and injection events closer to the planet. At Saturn, Azari et al. (2018, 2019) showed that interchange events are preferentially located on the night-side, possibly due to a combination of favored creation process and stronger growth-rate on the night-side, reminiscent of the Jovian plasma convection. Mitchell et al. (2015) additionally suggested that reconnected flux tubes could travel inward in the Kronian magnetosphere until an equilibrium location, where they would create a plasmapause-like boundary, and favor the development of interchange instability. This boundary has been observed at Saturn by Thomsen et al. (2015), but its validity at Jupiter is not established.

To conclude, we detected 35 interchange events in the inner Jovian magnetosphere from M-shells 5 to 10. We analyzed the ion composition and electron phase-space distribution of nine of them for which good plasma data were available. We found that those flux tubes are strongly depleted in low energy protons and heavy ions, which confirms their analogous nature to their Kronian counterparts (Thomsen et al., 2014). Based on adiabatic transport modeling, we show that the trapped electron population must have been isotropic at M-shell 11 to 35, depending on the flux tube. Our findings support the idea that evolution histories are different between the background plasma and the detected events. It also represent a step further toward a better description of the source of such flux tubes. At Jupiter, the link between interchange, injection, and reconnection will be further studied with Juno until the end of its extended mission. The upcoming JUICE mission, on its way to Jupiter, will provide additional opportunities for the study of interchange events with its charged particle detectors, while its ENA diagnostics capability will provide the global context for those small-scale events.

## Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

## Data Availability Statement

The Juno JADE, JEDI, and FGM data used in this study can be found in the Allegrini et al. (2024), B. Mauk (2024), Connerney (2024), Kurth and Piker (2024) datasets publicly available from the Planetary Plasma Interactions node of the Planetary Data System. The magnetic field data used for JADE-E pitch angles are provided in the JADE files. JEDI pitch angles are directly provided in the JEDI files. Part of the detection and analysis have been done with the publicly-available AMDA software (https://amda.cdpp.eu, Génot et al., 2021) provided by the French national data center for natural plasmas of the solar system, CDPP (https://www.cdpp.eu/, Harvey et al., 2003), as well as with the publicly-available CLWeb software (http://clweb.irap.omp.eu) developed by E. Penou at IRAP. The numerical implementation of the adiabatic transport model developed in this study and the fit to the data can be found in Devinat (2025).
Acknowledgments

We are grateful to NASA and contributing institutions that have made the Juno mission possible. French authors acknowledge the support of Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES, France) to the Juno mission. This study has benefited from funding provided by l'Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) under the Generic Call for Proposals 2022 and 2024. The research performed by M.D., N.A., M.B., Q.N. and M.D., N.A., M.B hold as part of the projects FACOM (ANR-22-CE49-0005-01 ACT and ANR-24-CE30-0324) and CANTALOUPE, respectively. Z.-Y. L. is funded by a CNES postdoctoral fellowship. The work at SwRI was funded by the NASA New Frontiers Program for Juno through contract NNM06AA75C. The work at APL was funded by NASA New Frontiers Program for Juno via subcontract with the Southwest Research Institute. The work at the University of Colorado was supported as a part of NASA's Juno mission funded by NASA through contract 699050X with the Southwest Research Institute. We thank A. Daly for insightful discussions.

References

Allegrini, F., Wilson, R. J., Ebert, R. W., & Loeffler, C. (2024). NASA planetary data system [Dataset]. Retrieved from https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu/collection/JNO-J/SW-JAD-3-CALIBRATED-V1.0

André, N., Dougherty, M. K., Russell, C. T., Leisner, J. S., & Khurana, K. K. (2005). Dynamics of the saturnine inner magnetosphere: First inferences from the Cassini magnetometers about small-scale plasma transport in the magnetosphere. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *32*(14), L14S06.1. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022643

André, N., Persoon, A. M., Goldstein, J., Burch, J. L., Louarn, P., Lewis, G. R., et al. (2007). Magnetic signatures of plasma-depleted flux tubes in the saturnine inner magnetosphere. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *34*(14), L14108. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030374

Azari, A. R., Jia, X., Liemohn, M. W., Hospodarsky, G. B., Provan, G., Ye, S.-Y., et al. (2019). Are Saturn's interchange injections organized by rotational longitude? *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, *124*(3), 1806–1822. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA026196

Azari, A. R., Liemohn, M. W., Jia, X., Thomsen, M. F., Mitchell, D. G., Sergis, N., et al. (2018). Interchange injections at Saturn: Statistical survey of energetic H+ sudden flux intensifications. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, *123*(6), 4692–4711. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025391

Bagenal, F., & Delamere, P. A. (2011). Flow of mass and energy in the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn. *Journal of Geophysical Research*, *116*(A5), A05209. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JA016294

Bolton, S. J., Thorne, R. M., Gurnett, D. A., Kurth, W. S., & Williams, D. J. (1997). Enhanced whistler-mode emissions: Signatures of interchange motion in the Io torus. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *24*(17), 2123–2126. https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL02020

Burch, J. L., Goldstein, J., Hill, T. W., Young, D. T., Crary, F. J., Coates, A. J., et al. (2005). Properties of local plasma injections in Saturn's magnetosphere. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *32*(14), L14S02. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022611

Burch, J. L., Goldstein, J., Lewis, W. S., Young, D. T., Coates, A. J., Dougherty, M. K., & André, N. (2007). Tethys and Dione as sources of outward-flowing plasma in Saturn's magnetosphere. *Nature*, *447*(7146), 833–835. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05906

Connerney, J. E. P. (2024). Juno mag calibrated data J V1 [Dataset]. NASA *Planetary Data System*. Retrieved from https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu/collection/JNO-J-3-FGM-CAL-V1.0

Connerney, J. E. P., Benn, M., Bjarno, J. B., Denver, T., Espley, J., Jorgensen, J. L., et al. (2017). The Juno magnetic field investigation. *Space Science Reviews*, *213*(1–4), 39–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-017-0334-z

Connerney, J. E. P., Kotsiaros, S., Oliversen, R. J., Espley, J. R., Joergensen, J. L., Joergensen, P. S., et al. (2018). A new model of Jupiter's magnetic field from Juno's first nine orbits. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *45*(6), 2590–2596. https://doi.org/10.1002/2018GL077312

Connerney, J. E. P., Timmins, S., Herceg, M., & Joergensen, J. L. (2020). A Jovian magnetodisc model for the Juno era. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, *125*(10), e2020JA028138. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028138

Connerney, J. E. P., Timmins, S., Oliversen, R. J., Espley, J. R., Joergensen, J. L., Kotsiaros, S., et al. (2022). A new model of Jupiter's magnetic field at the completion of Juno's prime mission. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets*, *127*(2), e2021JE007055. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JE007055

Daly, A., Li, W., Ma, Q., Shen, X.-C., Capannolo, L., Huang, S., et al. (2024). Statistical survey of interchange events in the Jovian magnetosphere using Juno observations. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *51*(19), e2024GL110300. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL110300

Daly, A., Li, W., Ma, Q., Shen, X.-C., Yoon, P. H., Menietti, J. D., et al. (2023). Plasma wave and particle dynamics during interchange events in the Jovian magnetosphere using Juno observations. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *50*(23), e2023GL103894. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL103894

Dessler, A. J. (1983). Coordinate systems. In *Physics of the Jovian magnetosphere* (pp. 498–504). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511564574.016

Devinat, M. (2025). Adiabatic transport model at Jupiter, applied to phase-space distribution in interchanging flux tubes. *Zenodo*. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17062619

Dungey, J. W. (1961). Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones. *Physical Review Letters*, *6*(2), 47–48. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.6.47

Ferrière, K. M., Zimmer, C., & Blanc, M. (2001). Quasi-interchange modes and interchange instability in rotating magnetospheres. *Journal of Geophysical Research*, *106*(A1), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JA000133

Génot, V., Budnik, E., Jacquey, C., Bouchemit, M., Renard, B., Dufourg, N., et al. (2021). Automated multi-dataset analysis (AMDA): An on-line database and analysis tool for heliospheric and planetary plasma data. *Planetary and Space Science*, *201*, 105214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2021.105214

Harvey, C., Huc, C., & Nonon-Latapie, M. (2003). Centre de données de la physique des plasmas. *Advances in Space Research*, *31*(5), 1291–1295. (Plasma Processes in the Near-Earth Space: Interball and Beyond). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(02)00943-2

Hill, T. W. (1979). Inertial limit on corotation. *Journal of Geophysical Research*, *84*(A11), 6554–6558. https://doi.org/10.1029/JA084iA11p06554

Hill, T. W., Rymer, A. M., Burch, J. L., Crary, F. J., Young, D. T., Thomsen, M. F., et al. (2005). Evidence for rotationally driven plasma transport in Saturn's magnetosphere. *Geophysical Research Letters*, *32*(14), L14S10. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022620

James, M. K., Provan, G., Kamran, A., Wilson, R. J., Vogt, M. F., Brennan, M. J., & Cowley, S. W. H. (2024). Jupitermag. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6822191

Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., Russell, C. T., & Walker, R. J. (1997). Intermittent short-duration magnetic field anomalies in the Io torus: Evidence for plasma interchange? *Geophysical Research Letters*, *24*(17), 2127–2130. https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL02202

Kollmann, P., Roussos, E., Paranicas, C., Woodfield, E. E., Mauk, B. H., Clark, G., et al. (2018). Electron acceleration to mev energies at Jupiter and Saturn. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, *123*(11), 9110–9129. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JA025665

Kurth, W. S., Hospodarsky, G. B., Faden, J. B., Sulaiman, A. H., Mauk, B. H., Clark, G., et al. (2023). Evidence of fresh injections related to the interchange instability in the Io torus. In C. K. Louis, C. M. Jackman, G. Fischer, A. H. Sulaiman, & P. Zucca (Eds.), *Planetary, solar and heliospheric radio emissions IX*. https://doi.org/10.25546/103104

Kurth, W. S., Hospodarsky, G. B., Kirchner, D. L., Mokrzycki, B. T., Averkamp, T. F., Robison, W. T., et al. (2017). The Juno waves investigation. *Space Science Reviews*, *213*(1–4), 347–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-017-0396-y

Kurth, W. S., & Piker, C. W. (2024). Juno E/J/S/SS Waves Calibrated Survey Full Resolution V2 [Dataset]. NASA *Planetary Data System*. Retrieved from https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu/collection/JNO-E/J/S-SW-AV-3-CDR-SRVFULL-V2.0

Lai, H., Jia, Y.-D., Russell, C. T., Jia, X., Masters, A., Dougherty, M. K., & Cui, J. (2021). Magnetic flux circulation in the Saturnian magnetosphere as constrained by Cassini observations in the inner magnetosphere. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, *126*(11), e2021JA029304. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029304
Lai, H. R., Russell, C. T., Jia, Y. D., Wei, H. Y., & Dougherty, M. K. (2016). Transport of magnetic flux and mass in Saturn's inner magnetosphere. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 121(4), 3050–3057. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JA022436

Leisner, J. S., Russell, C. T., Khurana, K. K., Dougherty, M. K., & André, N. (2005). Warm flux tubes in the e-ring plasma torus: Initial Cassini magnetometer observations. *Geophysical Research Letters*, 32(14), L14S08. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL022652

Liu, Z.-Y., Blanc, M., Andre, N., Bagenal, F., Wilson, R. J., Allegrini, F., et al. (2024). Juno observations of Jupiter's magnetodisk plasma: Implications for equilibrium and dynamics. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 129(11), e2024JA032976. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JA032976

Louarn, P., Paranicas, C. P., & Kurth, W. S. (2014). Global magnetodisk disturbances and energetic particle injections at Jupiter. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 119(6), 4495–4511. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA019846

Ma, Q., Li, W., Zhang, X.-J., Shen, X.-C., Daly, A., Bortnik, J., et al. (2021). Energetic electron distributions near the magnetic equator in the Jovian plasma sheet and outer radiation belt using Juno observations. *Geophysical Research Letters*, 48(24), e2021GL095833. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL095833

Mauk, B. (2024). JEDI calibrated (CDR) DATA [Dataset]. NASA Planetary Data System. Retrieved from https://pds-ppi.igpp.ucla.edu/collection/JNO-JJED-3-CDR-V1.0

Mauk, B. H., Haggerty, D. K., Jaskulek, S. E., Schlemm, C. E., Brown, L. E., Cooper, S. A., et al. (2017). The Jupiter energetic particle Detector instrument (JEDI) investigation for the Juno Mission. *Space Science Reviews*, 213(1–4), 289–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-013-0025-3

Mauk, B. H., Williams, D. J., McEntire, R. W., Khurana, K. K., & Roederer, J. G. (1999). Storm-like dynamics of Jupiter's inner and middle magnetosphere. *Journal of Geophysical Research*, 104(A10), 22759–22778. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JA0900097

McComas, D. J., Alexander, N., Allegrini, F., Bagenal, F., Beebe, C., Clark, G., et al. (2017). The Jovian Auroral Distributions Experiment (JADE) on the Juno Mission to Jupiter. *Space Science Reviews*, 213(1–4), 547–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-013-9990-9

Mitchell, D. G., Brandt, P. C., Carbary, J. F., Kurth, W. S., Krimigis, S. M., Paranicas, C., et al. (2015). Injection, interchange, and reconnection. In *Magnetotails in the solar system* (pp. 327–343). American Geophysical Union (AGU). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118842324.ch19

Nichols, J. D., Allegrini, F., Bagenal, F., Bonfond, B., Clark, G. B., Clarke, J. T., et al. (2023). Jovian magnetospheric injections observed by the Hubble space telescope and Juno. *Geophysical Research Letters*, 50(20), e2023GL105549. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105549

Phipps, P., & Bagenal, F. (2021). Centrifugal equator in Jupiter's plasma sheet. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 126(1), e2020JA028713. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JA028713

Rabia, J., Nénon, Q., André, N., Hue, V., Santos-Costa, D., Kamran, A., & Blanc, M. (2024). Influence of the Jovian current sheet models on the mapping of the UV auroral footprints of Io, Europa, and Ganymede. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 129(1), e2023JA032041. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JA032041

Russell, C. T., Kivelson, M. G., & Khurana, K. K. (2005). Statistics of depleted flux tubes in the Jovian magnetosphere. *Planetary and Space Science*, 53(9), 937–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2005.04.007

Russell, C. T., Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., & Huddleston, D. E. (2000). Circulation and dynamics in the Jovian magnetosphere. *Advances in Space Research*, 26(10), 1671–1676. (Planetary Ionospheres and Magnetospheres). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-1177(00)00115-0

Rymer, A. M., Mauk, B. H., Hill, T. W., André, N., Mitchell, D. G., Paranicas, C., et al. (2009). Cassini evidence for rapid interchange transport at Saturn. *Planetary and Space Science*, 57(14), 1779–1784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pss.2009.04.010

Rymer, A. M., Mauk, B. H., Hill, T. W., Paranicas, C., Mitchell, D. G., Coates, A. J., & Young, D. T. (2008). Electron circulation in Saturn's magnetosphere. *Journal of Geophysical Research*, 113(A1), A07208. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JA012589

Salveter, A., Saur, J., Clark, G., Sulaiman, A., Mauk, B. H., Connerney, J. E. P., & Bonfond, B. (2025). Investigating magnetic field fluctuations in Jovian auroral electron beams. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 130(7), e2025JA033816. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JA033816

Sarkango, Y., Szalay, J. R., Poppe, A. R., Nénon, Q., Kollmann, P., Clark, G., & McComas, D. J. (2023). Proton equatorial pitch angle distributions in Jupiter's inner magnetosphere. *Geophysical Research Letters*, 50(11), e2023GL104374. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104374

Tanaka, T., Ebihara, Y., Watanabe, M., Fujita, S., & Kataoka, R. (2021). Global simulation of the Jovian magnetosphere: Transitional structure from the Io plasma disk to the plasma sheet. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 126(6), e2021JA029232. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JA029232

Thomsen, M. F., Mitchell, D. G., Jia, X., Jackman, C. M., Hospodarsky, G., & Coates, A. J. (2015). Plasmapause formation at Saturn. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 120(4), 2571–2583. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JA021008

Thomsen, M. F., Reisenfeld, D. B., Wilson, R. J., Andriopoulou, M., Crary, F. J., Hospodarsky, G. B., et al. (2014). Ion composition in interchange injection events in Saturn's magnetosphere. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 119(12), 9761–9772. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JA020489

Thorne, R. M., Armstrong, T. P., Stone, S., Williams, D. J., McEntire, R. W., Bolton, S. J., et al. (1997). Galileo evidence for rapid interchange transport in the Io torus. *Geophysical Research Letters*, 24(17), 2131–2134. https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL01788

Vasylünas, V. M. (1983). Physics of the Jovian magnetosphere. 11. Plasma distribution and flow. In A. J. Dessler (Ed.), *Physics of the Jovian magnetosphere* (pp. 395–453). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511564574.013

Vogt, M. F., Connerney, J. E. P., DiBraccio, G. A., Wilson, R. J., Thomsen, M. F., Ebert, R. W., et al. (2020). Magnetotail reconnection at Jupiter: A survey of Juno magnetic field observations. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 125(3), e2019JA027486. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JA027486

Vogt, M. F., Kivelson, M. G., Khurana, K. K., Joy, S. P., & Walker, R. J. (2010). Reconnection and flows in the Jovian magnetotail as inferred from magnetometer observations. *Journal of Geophysical Research*, 115(A6), A06219. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JA015098

Wang, J.-Z., Bagenal, F., Wilson, R. J., Delamere, P. A., Cao, X., Nerney, E., et al. (2025). Super-corotating flows in plasma disk within 30 Jupiter radii. *Geophysical Research Letters*, 52(3), e2024GL112910. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL112910

Wang, Y., Yang, J., Guo, X., Wang, C., & Blanc, M. (2023). Simulation of centrifugally driven convection in Jovian inner magnetosphere using the rice convection model. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics*, 128(3), e2022JA031132. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JA031132

Wilson, R. J., Vogt, M. F., Provan, G., Kamran, A., James, M. K., Brennan, M., & Cowley, S. W. H. (2023). Internal and external Jovian magnetic fields: Community code to serve the magnetospheres of the outer planets community. *Space Science Reviews*, 219(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-023-00961-3

Yin, Z.-F., Sun, Y.-X., Zhou, X.-Z., Pan, D.-X., Yao, Z.-H., Yue, C., et al. (2023). Trapped and leaking energetic particles in injection flux tubes of Saturn's magnetosphere. *Geophysical Research Letters*, 50(19), e2023GL105687. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105687

Zhao, J., Guo, R., Shi, Q., Tang, T., Degeling, A. W., Yao, Z., et al. (2024). Dayside magnetodisk reconnection in Jovian system: Galileo and voyager observation. *Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets*, 129(7), e2023JE008240. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JE008240