101
DOI: 10.1201/9780429440939-11
9
Electromagnetic Fields
Mitigate Adverse Effects
of Environmental
Stresses in Plants
Angel De Souza-Torres
Granma University
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a state- of- the-art overview of the mitigating effects of electromagnetic fields
( EMFs) on plants sown under abiotic and biotic stresses and thus their implications for agroecology.
It considers static and alternating magnetic fields ( MFs) and pulsed fields ( PEMFs) ranging from
1.5 μT up to 800 mT in the range of extremely low frequencies ( 0–300 Hz).
Environmental stress may be defined as an adverse external condition for plant growth and
development or productivity of plants, caused by either environmental or biological factors, or both
( Verma et al., 2013). Plant stress can be divided into two main categories: abiotic stress and biotic
stress. Abiotic stress imposed on plants by the environment may be either physical or chemical
( drought, salinity, high temperatures, ultraviolet light, heavy metal toxicity), while biotic stress
imposed on plants is a biological factor such as insects, bacteria, viruses, pathogens and weeds
( Gull et al., 2019; Verma et al., 2013). Exposure of plants to biotic and abiotic stress induces a disruption in plant metabolism, implying physiological costs ( Bolton, 2009; Heil and Bostock, 2002;
Massad, et al., 2012; Swarbrick et al., 2006), and thus leading to a reduction in fitness and ultimately
in productivity ( Shao et al., 2008). Abiotic stress has a great impact on plant growth by causing
growth reductions of up to 50% in most plant species and, consequently, is responsible for severe
losses in the field ( Wang et al., 2003). Still, biotic stress is an additional challenge, inducing a strong
pressure on the plant and adding to this damage through pathogen, pest, insect or herbivore attack
( Brown and Hovmoller, 2002; Maron and Crone, 2006; Mordecai, 2011; Strauss and Zangerl, 2002).
Under natural conditions, concurrent occurrence of two or more different types of stresses, such as
drought and salinity, is more detrimental to global crop production ( Pandey et al., 2015; Prasch and
Sonnewald, 2013; Suzuki et al., 2014). The nature of the interactions between the abiotic and biotic
stresses and the duration of stress exposure can lead to a series of effects on plant growth, development and overall yield and also determine the extent of the influence on crop productivity.
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 101
Effects of MFs on Abiotic Stress ................................................................................................... 102
Effects of MFs on Biotic Stress ..................................................................................................... 105
Conclusions and Perspectives ........................................................................................................ 106
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 107
References ...................................................................................................................................... 107
DOI: 10.1201/9780429440939-11
9
Electromagnetic Fields
Mitigate Adverse Effects
of Environmental
Stresses in Plants
Angel De Souza-Torres
Granma University
INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides a state- of- the-art overview of the mitigating effects of electromagnetic fields
( EMFs) on plants sown under abiotic and biotic stresses and thus their implications for agroecology.
It considers static and alternating magnetic fields ( MFs) and pulsed fields ( PEMFs) ranging from
1.5 μT up to 800 mT in the range of extremely low frequencies ( 0–300 Hz).
Environmental stress may be defined as an adverse external condition for plant growth and
development or productivity of plants, caused by either environmental or biological factors, or both
( Verma et al., 2013). Plant stress can be divided into two main categories: abiotic stress and biotic
stress. Abiotic stress imposed on plants by the environment may be either physical or chemical
( drought, salinity, high temperatures, ultraviolet light, heavy metal toxicity), while biotic stress
imposed on plants is a biological factor such as insects, bacteria, viruses, pathogens and weeds
( Gull et al., 2019; Verma et al., 2013). Exposure of plants to biotic and abiotic stress induces a disruption in plant metabolism, implying physiological costs ( Bolton, 2009; Heil and Bostock, 2002;
Massad, et al., 2012; Swarbrick et al., 2006), and thus leading to a reduction in fitness and ultimately
in productivity ( Shao et al., 2008). Abiotic stress has a great impact on plant growth by causing
growth reductions of up to 50% in most plant species and, consequently, is responsible for severe
losses in the field ( Wang et al., 2003). Still, biotic stress is an additional challenge, inducing a strong
pressure on the plant and adding to this damage through pathogen, pest, insect or herbivore attack
( Brown and Hovmoller, 2002; Maron and Crone, 2006; Mordecai, 2011; Strauss and Zangerl, 2002).
Under natural conditions, concurrent occurrence of two or more different types of stresses, such as
drought and salinity, is more detrimental to global crop production ( Pandey et al., 2015; Prasch and
Sonnewald, 2013; Suzuki et al., 2014). The nature of the interactions between the abiotic and biotic
stresses and the duration of stress exposure can lead to a series of effects on plant growth, development and overall yield and also determine the extent of the influence on crop productivity.
CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 101
Effects of MFs on Abiotic Stress ................................................................................................... 102
Effects of MFs on Biotic Stress ..................................................................................................... 105
Conclusions and Perspectives ........................................................................................................ 106
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 107
References ...................................................................................................................................... 107