Bioelectromagnetics 27:247^257 (2006)

Pre-Sowing MagneticTreatments of Tomato

Seeds Increase the Growth and Yield of Plants
A. De Souza,1* D. Garc|¤ a,1 L. Sueiro,2 F. Gilart,3 E. Porras,1 and L. Licea1
1
Laboratory of Non-Ionizing Radiation, Center for Environmental Research, Services and
Technologies, Agricultural Research Institute‘‘Jorge Dimitrov,’’ Granma, Cuba
2
Laboratory of Plant Protection, Center for Environmental Research, Services and
Technologies, Agricultural Research Institute‘‘Jorge Dimitrov,’’ Granma, Cuba
3
National Center forApplied Electromagnetism (CNEA), University of Oriente,
Santiago de Cuba, Cuba
The effects of pre-sowing magnetic treatments on growth and yield of tomato (cv Campbell-28) were
investigated under field conditions. Tomato seeds were exposed to full-wave rectified sinusoidal non-
uniform magnetic fields (MFs) induced by an electromagnet at 100 mT (rms) for 10 min and at 170 mT
(rms) for 3 min. Non-treated seeds were considered as controls. Plants were grown in experimental
plots (30.2 m2) and were cultivated according to standard agricultural practices. During the vegetative
and generative growth stages, samples were collected at regular intervals for growth rate analyses, and
the resistance of plants to geminivirus and early blight was evaluated. At physiological maturity, the
plants were harvested from each plot and the yield and yield parameters were determined. In the
vegetative stage, the treatments led to a significant increase in leaf area, leaf dry weight, and specific
leaf area (SLA) per plant. Also, the leaf, stem, and root relative growth rates of plants derived from
magnetically treated seeds were greater than those shown by the control plants. In the generative stage,
leaf area per plant and relative growth rates of fruits from plants from magnetically exposed seeds were
greater than those of the control plant fruits. At fruit maturity stage, all magnetic treatments increased
significantly (P <.05) the mean fruit weight, the fruit yield per plant, the fruit yield per area, and the
equatorial diameter of fruits in comparison with the controls. At the end of the experiment, total dry
matter was significantly higher for plants from magnetically treated seeds than that of the controls. A
significant delay in the appearance of first symptoms of geminivirus and early blight and a reduced
infection rate of early blight were observed in the plants from exposed seeds to MFs. Pre-sowing
magnetic treatments would enhance the growth and yield of tomato crop. Bioelectromagnetics 27:
247–257, 2006.
2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Key words: agriculture; total dry matter increase; ELF; magnetic fields; Lycopersicon
esculentum; stimulating effect; seed treatment

INTRODUCTION 1998; Celestino et al., 2000; Martinez et al., 2000;

Remarkable increases of plant growth and pro-
ductivity have been postulated in response to magnetic
fields (MFs). At the cellular level, a wide range of
physiological effects can be observed. Effects on plant
growth, the role of MFs on enzyme activity [Nazar and
Paul, 1995; Yaoita and Wada, 1995], on synthesis of
proteins [E et al., 1991; Cho et al., 1992], on auxin
content [Mitrov et al., 1988], on water uptake [Reina
et al., 2001] have been observed. Jovanič and Sarvan
[2004] found that MFs can induce significant changes in
bean leaf fluorescence spectra and temperature.
MFs have been reported to exert a positive
effect on the germination of seeds [Carbonell et al.,
2000; Moon and Chung, 2000; Garcia et al., 2002],
on plant growth and development [Masafumi et al.,
Aladjadjiyan, 2002], on tree growth [Reed, 1993;
Ruzič et al., 1998], on ripening of fruits [Boe
and Salunke, 1963], crop yield [Pietruszewski, 1993;
Wójcik, 1995], and on plant nutrient element
————— —
*Correspondence to: A. De Souza, Laboratory of Non-Ionizing
Radiation, Center for Environmental Research, Services and
Technologies, Agricultural Research Institute ‘‘Jorge Dimitrov,’’
Apartado 33, Bayamo CP 85100, Granma, Cuba.
E-mail: angelrdt2002@yahoo.com
Received for review 2 November 2004; Final revision received
21 November 2005
DOI 10.1002/bem.20206
Published online 1 March 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com).

2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

248 De Souza et al.
composition [Esitken and Turan, 2004]. However,
considerable difficulties in performing controlled
experiments with reproducible results have been
pointed out [Phirke et al., 1996; Potts et al., 1997].
Several models have been proposed to explain possible
mechanisms behind the influence of MFs [Liboff and
McLeod, 1987; Lednev, 1991; Popp, 1994; Goodman
et al., 1995]; however, the effects that have been
reported do not seem to be easily explained by a single
hypothesis.
Extensive research has revealed that the effects of
magnetic treatments depend not only on the MF
strength and exposure period [Wittekind et al., 1990],
but also on the physiological condition of the organism
involved and on the reigning environmental conditions
[Bolognani et al., 1992; McLeod et al., 1992; Weaver,
1993; Gutzeit, 2001]. Basic stimulating doses, based on
MF strength and exposure period, must therefore be
established under controlled conditions before extend-
ing such doses to field conditions [Jristova, 1986].
The objective of this research was to determine the
effects of pre-sowing magnetic treatments on tomato
(cv Campbell-28) plant growth during the vegetative
and generative stages and on final yield and yield
parameters, and to evaluate the resistance of plants
against geminivirus and early blight under field
conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant Material
The tomato seeds (Lycopersicon esculentum
Mill.; cv. ‘‘Campbell-28’’) used in the present experi-
ments were genetically uniform (stated on the package
by the supplier), and they were provided by the Seeds
Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture in Granma
Province, Cuba. The moisture content of the seeds was
measured and balanced between 9% and 10% using a
dryer containing 70% glycerin solution [ISTA, 1999].
Magnetic Exposure Conditions
The pre-sowing magnetic treatment was applied
using an electromagnet. This consisted of two pairs of
energizable cylindrical coils, each formed by 4026
turns of 0.41-mm enameled copper wire. Each pair of
coils was wound 11 cm apart on an iron bar (dimensions
40
3.5 cm). The two bars were placed one above the
other, their ends held by metallic supports (Fig. 1). The
coils were connected in series and fed through a power
source having approximately the shape of a 60 Hz full-
wave rectified sinusoidal voltage. Thus, when a full-
wave rectified sinusoidal electric current passed
through the electromagnet coils, a full-wave rectified
Fig. 1. The experimental electromagnet setup. A petri dish is
placed in the airgap between the two iron bars to expose seeds to
magnetic fields (MFs).
sinusoidal non-uniform MF was generated in the air
space (poles) between the two bars.
Dry tomato seeds were placed in a pile in the
center of a Petri dish (9 cm diameter) without any
medium or support on the pole of the electromagnet.
The following magnetic treatments were applied: T1; a
full-wave rectified sinusoidal non-uniform MF with
a peak field of approximately 90 mT for 10 min; T2; a
full-wave rectified sinusoidal non-uniform MF with
a peak field of approximately 154 mT for 3 min;
Control: the local geomagnetic field only. No MF other
than that of the local geomagnetic field was de-
tected within the experimental electromagnet when
switched off.
The MFs generated were adjusted by varying
voltage applied to the coils until the required working
strength was achieved. For each applied voltage, the
MFs generated were measured in the region occupied
by the seeds (pole face) using a Lakeshore Model 410
magnetometer with the probe mechanically coupled to
a micrometric positioning system. The total full-wave
rectified wave could be considered as a simultaneous
steady (B0), a sinusoidal 120 Hz (B1), and higher
components. The effective (rms) MF (spatial average)
over the region occupied by the sample were approx-
imately 1.11B0. However, for 120 Hz (significant
frequency), the effective value was 0.7B0.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the steady
vertical component By of the generated MF in the center
of the pole for an applied voltage to coils with an rms
value of 220 V. The horizontal component Bx is smaller
than vertical one by at least in an order of magnitude.
As it can be observed, the MF was pronouncedly
inhomogeneous. The inhomogeneity of the field
DB/Baverage (largest variation across the region/average
field) was of about 30% only for the region occupied by
 MFs Stimulate Plant Growth and Yield Parameters 249

Fig. 2. Distribution of steady vertical component (Bv) of non-
uniform MF generated in the region occupied by the sample.
the sample, where DB and Baverage were of 29.4 mT and
102.1 mT, respectively.
The choice of the above magnetic treatments were
obtained as a result of previous screenings conducted
under controlled laboratory and greenhouse conditions
[De Souza et al., 1999; De Souza, 2002].
Field Conditions
The seeds (exposed/controls) were labeled and
sown in different seed beds (15 cm high) on 23 December
2002, before being transplanted into open field.
These seeds were sown 6 cm apart and 0.5 cm deep in
rows at a rate of 1.2 g seeds/m2, according to standard
agricultural practice. During this period, daily irrigation
was applied during the morning.
At 28 days post-sowing (20 January 2003), the
seedlings were transplanted manually with naked roots
to the experimental plots at a logistical farm located in
Bayamo, Cuba. The plots (30.2 m2) were 8.4 m long and
3.6 m wide and comprised of seven rows 1.40 m apart. A
border row was included around the edge of each plot
(plants not used in the experiment) to reduce the spread
of pests and diseases. This border area is comprised of
the planted plants in the front and back (outer) rows and
in the left and right sides of each plot. Plots were
arranged in a randomized complete block design with
four replicates per treatment for a total amount of
12 plots. Eighty seedlings spaced 0.30 m apart (within-
row spacing) were transplanted to each plot. Fifty were
sown in the central area of each plot for further
sampling, while the rest (30 seedlings) were planted in
the border area. Thus, a total of 960 plants were
cultivated, of which 600 were analyzed. Cultivation
operations were manually performed, paying special
attention to sowing, weeding, and harvest procedures,
following the standard agricultural practices estab-
lished for tomato crop by the Ministry of Agriculture
[MINAG, 1995]. The experiment was repeated from
22 December 2003 to 21 April 2004.
The soil in the plots was an Tropofluvent [USDA,
2003] derived from river sediments. Table 1 provides
information on the soil’s macro- and micronutrient
contents, and its chemical and physical properties for
the upper layer (0–0.20 cm). Although, the ground used
for the experiments was a working farm, it was
consecutively sown with natural grasses for several
years, so that any soil fertilization way was previously
used. In order to test the soil uniformity, the whole
experimental area was divided in 1 m2 plots and a
biological trial was performed in which maize plants
were planted in such as plots. The results showed that
yields of plots were not significantly different (P <.05),
indicating the existence of soil uniformity. Also, these
experiments were conducted under low input condi-
tions, that is, with no application of mineral and/or
organic fertilizers, with no pesticides, and with
minimum ground working. According to soil analysis

TABLE 1. Macro- and Micronutrient Contents and Chemical and Physical Properties of Tropofluvent Soil in the Experimental
Plots at a Logistical Farm at Bayamo

Macronutrients Micronutrients Chemical and physical properties

Organic matter (%) 3.1 Fe (meq/100 g) 161.3 P2O5 (%) 0.07
Organic carbon content (%) 5.3 Mn (meq/100 g) 6.15 K2O (%) 0.60
Zn (meq/100 g) 0.70 PH (water) 6.7
Na (meq/100 g) 0.8 Cu (meq/100 g) 0.13 PH (KCl) 5.8
Ca (meq/100 g) 23 Mo (meq/100 g) 0.20 Base exchange 23.8
K (meq/100 g) 0.82 B (meq/100 g) 0.47 Capacity (meq/100 g)
Mg (meq/100 g) 6.2 Cl (meq/100 g) 0.10 Cation exchange 18.7
P (meq/100 g) 0.12 Capacity (meq/100 g)
Hydrolytic acidity (meq/100 g) 1.3
Soil moisture (%) 3.2
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.34
250 De Souza et al.
TABLE 2. Climatic Conditions During the Experimental Period (2002–2004)

December January February March April

Meteorological variables 2002 2003 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004 2003 2004
Mean maximum temperature (8C) 30.3 30.6 28.1 30.9 31.6 33.1 32.5 33.4 32.8 34.2
Mean minimum temperature (8C) 18.2 17.6 15.5 15.4 16.8 16.9 17.1 18.4 20.0 19.3
Mean temperature (8C) 24.1 23.2 21.2 22.5 23.6 24.1 24.1 24.8 24.6 25.6
Lighting (h) 12 12 12 12 14 14 14 15 16 15
Relative humidity (%) 78 80 81 78 77 72 75 71 75 71
Mean rainfall (mm) 23 41.5 24 13.8 27 10 30 13.2 43 84.2

performed, plant nutrient levels were adequate for the
growth of tomatoes.
Irrigation was applied uniformly to all plots using
a stationary sprinkler system. The first and second
irrigation was applied before and after transplanting at
0.12 m3/m2. The same amount was then provided daily
for 20 days. After this time, irrigation was performed at
intervals of 3 days (0.24 m3/m2) for 70 days, and finally
at intervals of 5 days (0.36 m3/m2) for 17 days until the
crop had completed its cycle. Irrigation was stopped
1 week before harvest.
Weather data for the experimental period were
recorded by the meteorological station at Bayamo,
Cuba (Table 2).
During vegetative stage, the infection with tomato
yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) transmitted by whitefly
(Bemisia tabaci) and early blight caused by Alternaria
solani were evaluated. Infection spontaneously
occurred in the field for both diseases. Twenty plants
from the three central rows of each plot were labeled
and the disease severity and incidence (%) for TYLCV
were recorded weekly for 8 weeks. According to Scott
and Schuster [1991], the score scale was from 0 to 4 as
follows; 0 ¼ no visible symptoms, 1 ¼ slight symptoms
only visible on close inspection, 2 ¼ moderate symp-
toms on only part of the plant visible from about 0.66 m,
3 ¼ moderate to severe symptoms over the entire plant
but with minor stunting, and 4 ¼ severe symptoms over
entire plant with severe stunting. Each plant was
estimated by two people and the scores were averaged.
This resulted in intermediate scores such as 0.5, 1.5, etc.
In addition, disease incidence (%) and infection rate
(%) by early blight were also recorded weekly for
8 weeks on the same 20 plants considered and labeled
above in each plot. The formula of Townsend and
Heuberger [1945] and score scale proposed by Cornide
and Izquierdo [1979] were employed to determine the
infection rates.
Growth Dynamics and Yield
The growth dynamics of the crop were divided
into two different phases: vegetative (before the
appearance of the reproductive organs) and generative
(the formation of flowers, anthesis, and the develop-
ment of fruits). Crop growth dynamics was assessed on
three plots (one plot ¼ one replicate) corresponding to
each treatment. Every 15 days, 5 plants per treatment
were randomly selected for measuring different varia-
bles (a procedure that destroyed the sampled plants);
this was performed over a period of 120 days post-
transplant and, therefore, involved 120 plants. Dry
weights (ventilated oven at 80 8C for 72 h) from leaves
(including petioles), stem, roots, and picked fruits and
leaf area per plant (MK2, Delta-T Devices Area Meter,
Cambridge, UK) were determined for growth analyses,
including the specific leaf area (SLA). The relative
growth rates (RGR, g/g/day) of leaves, stem, roots, and
fruits were determined as slopes of the natural
logarithms of dry weights versus time between the
individual sampling dates [Hunt, 1990].
At physiological maturity, the same 20 plants
labeled above from the three central rows of each plot,
representing an area of 8.4 m2 (i.e., 80 plants per
treatment and 240 for the three treatments) were used to
determine the yield parameters. As the fruits were
harvested, the number of fruits per plant was recorded.
Mean fruit weight (g), mean fruit yield per plant (kg per
plant), mean fruit yield per area (kg/m2), and mean
equatorial diameter of fruits (cm) were then calculated.
Harvesting was performed on five dates, once every
8 days. Fruit yield per plant was calculated by
multiplying the mean fruit weight by the number of
harvested fruits per labeled plant at each harvest. The
plantation area (0.42 m2), calculation area (8.4 m2), and
fruit yield per plant at each harvest were used to
calculate the fruit yield per area (kg/m2).
Data Analyses
Data for the growth dynamics during the vegeta-
tive and generative stages, and the yield and yield
parameters of the two experimental years were pooled
for each harvest and analyzed by two-way ANOVA
(P <.05) to determine the effects of magnetic treat-
ments compared to the controls. Means were compared
 MFs Stimulate Plant Growth and Yield Parameters 251

using the Newman–Keuls test [Stell and Torrie, 1992].
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov procedure was used to test
the data normality; Bartlett’s test was used to test the
homogeneity of variances among treatments [Yandell,
1997]. All the statistical analyses were performed
using the ‘‘Statistica’’software package (StatSoft, Tulsa,
OK).
RESULTS
Vegetative and Generative Stages
At the vegetative stage, the plants derived from
seeds treated with MFs showed a significantly greater
leaf area per plant and leaf dry weight than did the
controls (P <.05). T1 plants showed an increase of
58.2% for 2002–2003 and 52.4% for 2003–2004 in leaf
area while T2 showed an increase of 51% for 2002–
2003 and 53.6% for 2003–2004; similarly, T1 plants
showed a 44% increase for 2002–2003 and a 43.3%
increase for 2003–2004 in leaf dry weight while T2
showed a 41.4% increase for 2002–2003 and a 44.3%
increase for 2003–2004, respectively compared to the
control plants (Table 3). This resulted in an increase in
SLA (10.3% for 2002–2003 and 7.8% for 2003–2004)
for T1 plants and (9.7% for 2002–2003 and 8.6% for
2003–2004) for T2 plants, respectively in comparison
with the control plants (Table 3).
At the generative stage, leaf area per plant was
significantly increased (P <.05) by magnetic treat-
ments. T1 plants showed increases of 22.6% for 2002–
2003 and 21.6% for 2003–2004, while T2 plants
showed increases of 21.41% for 2002–2003 and 22.7%
for 2003–2004, respectively in both cases compared to
the controls (Table 3). SLA and leaf dry weight per
plant, however, were not influenced by magnetic
treatments at this stage.
Relative growth rates (RGR) express growth in
terms of increase in dry weight per unit of total weight
and time. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the RGR mean for
two growth stages covering from the period of stem
elongation until the development of fruits.
Differences in growth dynamics between vegeta-
tive stage and generative stage were found between
plants derived from magnetically treated and non-
treated seeds. At the vegetative stage, the T1 and T2
plants showed RGRs for the leaves (17.5 and 19.3%),
stems (14.1 and 16.2%), and roots (17 and 20%),
respectively greater than that of the control (P <.05)
(Fig. 3). However, at the generative stage, only the
RGRs of the fruits were significantly higher (27.1 for T1
and 30.7% for T2) than those shown by the controls
(P <.05) (Fig. 5). The RGRs of leaves, stems, and roots
were unaffected (P <.05) by magnetic treatments at this
stage (Fig. 4).
As for resistance to infection, the results showed
that magnetic treatments induced a significant delay
(P <.05) on the appearance of first symptoms of
geminivirus, slowing appearance of such disease in
7–9 days for 2002–2003 and in 7–8 days for 2003–
2004, respectively in comparison with the controls
(Table 4). In the other hand, disease severity and
infection of geminivirus transmitted by whiteflies were
not significantly influenced (P <.05) by magnetic
treatments (Table 4). However, the results showed a
trend to reduce disease severity and incidence for plants
come from seeds exposed to treatment (T2), although
the infection was generally low.

TABLE 3. Effect of Pre-Sowing Magnetic Treatments on Leaf Parameters in the Vegetative and Generative Stages (2002–2003,
2003–2004)

T1 T2 Control

2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 ASE () CV (%)

Leaf growth parameters
In vegetative stage
Leaf area per plant 2342a 2234a 2294a 2250a 1480b 1465b 160 22.9
(cm2)
Leaf dry weight (g) 8.50a 8.37a 8.43a 8.37a 5.90b 5.84b 0.8 20.7
Specific leaf area 276.2a 268.0a 274.7a 270.2a 250.4b 248.6b 4.2 5.2
(per cm2
g)
In generative stage
Leaf area per plant 3482a 3390a 3450a 3418a 2840b 2785b 172 15.2
(cm2)
Leaf dry weight (g) 10.22a 10.18a 10.13a 10.20a 8.25a 8.20a 1.0 15.5
Specific leaf area 340.5a 333.2a 337.8a 336.0a 338.2a 339.6a 5.0 4.2
(per cm2
g)
In rows, means followed by the same letter did not show significant differences (P <.05) according to the Newman–Keuls test. ASE,
average standard error of mean; CV, coefficient of variation. Data are mean of 60 plants per treatment.
252 De Souza et al.

Fig. 3. Influence of pre-sowing magnetic treatments on relative growth rates (RGR) of leaves,
stems, androotsduringthevegetative stage.Thebarsindicatethemeansof 60 plantsper treatment
for all harvest from 2002 to 2004. Different letters in bars show significant differences (P <.05)
according to the Newman^Keuls test.Bars represent the average standard errorof means.

Pre-sowing magnetic treatments had a noticeable
effect (P <.05) on the appearance of first symptoms of
early blight, delaying appearance of such disease in 8–
10 days for 2002–2003 and in 7–8 days for 2003–2004,
respectively compared to the controls (Table 5).
Similarly, infection rate of early blight caused by
Alternaria solani was significantly decreased (P <.05)
for plants derived from seeds exposed to MFs compared
to the controls in both years of experimentation
(Table 5). The disease incidence, however, was
unaffected by magnetic treatments (Table 5).
At the end of the experiment, total dry matter of
the plants derived from the magnetically treated seeds
was significantly greater (18–29% for 2002–2003 and
13.6–16.4% for 2003–2004) than that of the control
plants (Table 6). The final dry weights of leaves, stem,
and fruits were significantly higher for plants, which
come from magnetically exposed seeds than for the
control plants (P <.05). Further, their fruit dry matter
production was greater than their leaf dry matter
production, which in turn was greater than their stem
dry matter production (Table 6). In the plants derived
from magnetically exposed seeds at 120 days after
transplanting, 57% for 2002–2003 and 56% for 2003–
2004 of total dry matter had been distributed to the
fruits, 30% for 2002–2003, and 31% for 2003–2004 to
the leaves and 13% for 2002–2003 and 2003–2004 to
the stem. In the control plants, 54% for 2002–2003 and
55% for 2003–2004 of total dry matter had been
distributed to the fruits, 33% for 2002–2003 and 2003–
2004 to the leaves, and 13% for 2002–2003 and 12% for
2003–2004 to the stem (Table 6).
Crop Yield
The number of harvested fruits per plant was
not significantly influenced (P <.05) by pre-sowing

Fig. 4. Influence of pre-sowing magnetic treatments on RGR of leaves, stems, and roots during the
generative stage.The barsindicate the means of 60 plantsper treatment forallharvest from 2002 to
2004.Different lettersin barsshow significant differences (P <.05) according to the Newman^Keuls
test.Bars represent the average standard errorof means.
 MFs Stimulate Plant Growth and Yield Parameters 253

Fig. 5. Influence of pre-sowing magnetic treatments on RGR of fruits during the generative stage.
The barsindicate the means of 60 plantsper treatment forallharvest in 2002 ^ 2004.Different letters
in bars show significant differences (P <.05) according to the Newman^Keuls test. Bars represent
the average standard errorof means.

magnetic treatments in any of 2 years of experimenta-
tion (Tables 7 and 8).
The magnetic treatments had a significant effect
(P <.05) on mean fruit weight. T1 plants showed an
increase of 16.5% for 2002–2003 and 15.3% for 2003–
2004 with T1 treatment and of 17.2% for 2002–2003
and 16.3% for 2003–2004 with T2 treatment compared
to the controls (Tables 7 and 8).
Fruit yield per plant was also significantly
influenced (P <.05) by magnetic treatments, with
increases of 27% for 2002–2003 and 19.4% for
2003–2004 with T1, and of 28.5% for 2002–2003
and 21% for 2003–2004 with T2, respectively in
comparison with the controls (Tables 7 and 8).
Fruit yield per area was remarkably increased
(P <.05) by magnetic treatments, with increases of
29% for 2002 –2003 and 21.6% for 2003–2004 with
T1, and of 30.1% for 2002– 2003 and 25% for 2003–
2004 with T2, respectively compared to the controls
(Tables 7 and 8).
The magnetic treatments had a positive effect
(P <.05) on equatorial diameter of fruits, which
increased by 17% for 2002–2003 and 16.2% for
2003–2004 with T1 and by 25.5% for 2002–2003
and 21% for 2003–2004 with T2 in comparison to the
controls (Tables 7 and 8).
DISCUSSION
Although there were uncontrollable variations in
weather and sources of disease infection, exposure of
the tomato seeds to the full-wave rectified sinusoidal
non-uniform MFs led to a considerable improvement
in the growth and development of the plants they
produced.
The results show the magnetic treatments led to a
remarkable increase in leaf area per plant and leaf dry
weight in plants derived from the treated seeds. This
effect must have increased photosynthetic rates due to
the greater interception of light and the greater amount
of assimilates available for vegetative growth. This
resulted in an increased SLA, which had a strong
influence on crop growth (Table 3). This is consistent
with the results of Hoff [1981], who found an increase in

TABLE 4. Appearance of First Symptoms, Disease Severity, and Incidence of Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV) for
Plants Coming from Seeds Exposed to Magnetic Fields and the Controls (2002–2003, 2003–2004)

Appearance of first Delay of disease

symptoms (days) appearance (days) Disease severity Disease incidence (%)
Magnetic
treatments 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004
a a a a a
T1 21 19 7 7 0.80 0.60 33.67 30.20a
T2 23a 20a 9 8 0.75a 0.58a 17.92a 25.04a
Control 14b 12b — — 0.84a 0.62a 38.13a 28.11a
ASE () 1.2 1.5 0.07 0.10 3.08 3.26
CV (%) 3.55 4.30 40.3 42.4 37.8 40.8
In the columns, values followed by the same letter did not show significant differences (P <.05) according to Newman–Keuls test. ASE,
average standard error of error; CV, coefficient of variation. Data are mean of 80 plants per treatment.
254 De Souza et al.
TABLE 5. Appearance of First Symptoms, Infection Rate, and Disease Incidence of Early Blight for Plants Coming from Seeds
Exposed to Magnetic Fields and the Controls (2002–2003, 2003–2004)

Appearance of first Delay of disease

symptoms (days) appearance (days) Infection rate (%) Disease incidence (%)
Magnetic
treatments 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004
a a a a a
T1 23 22 8 7 3.10 4.02 19.19 22.0a
T2 25a 23a 10 8 2.94a 3.15a 14.19a 19.47a
Control 15b 15b — — 6.57b 7.04b 21.28a 20.71a
ASE () 1.4 1.2 0.51 0.60 1.45 1.82
CV (%) 3.7 3.1 30.5 32.1 29.9 32.4
In the columns, values followed by the same letter did not show significant differences (P <.05) according to Newman–Keuls test. ASE,
average standard error of mean; CV, coefficient of variation. Data are mean of 80 plants per treatment.

photosynthetic rate and influx of water as a result of
magnetic treatments. Socorro et al. [1999] also reported
a favorable effect of magnetic treatment on leaf
thickness in crop tomatoes, leading to a noticeable
increase in the thickness of spongy tissue, and in the
length and width of chlorophylic-containing cells and
the upper and lower epidermal cells.
The magnetic treatments had positive effects on
the RGR of leaves, stems, and roots during the
vegetative stage and on RGR of fruits during the
generative stage. This would favor crop metabolic
activity and led to an increase in the quantity of
assimilates available for growth, initial, and final
development, and distribution (dry matter) among the
plant organs. These responses showed that the magnetic
treatments enhanced dry matter production and
improved its partitioning.
A delay in the appearance of first symptoms of
geminivirus induced by magnetic treatments influences
tomato plants positively, because this effect protects
them against such disease in the most susceptible period
for plants, that is, at the nursery stage and 40 days after
transplanting [Murguido et al., 1996]. Thus, this delay
influences tomato yield favorably.
A delay in the appearance of first symptoms and
reduced infection rate of early blight induced by
magnetic exposure indicate a decrease in the suscept-
ibility of tomato plants to this pathogen that might be
the result of increase of enzymatic activity [Osipova,
1990], greater absorption of moisture [Kavi, 1977] and
nutrients [Reddy, 1977], changes in respiration
[Gemishev and Tlosva, 1982], and synthesis of proteins
[Cho et al., 1992] and accelerated plant growth
[De Souza et al., 2004] produced by magnetic treat-
ments. Therefore, above-mentioned effects could lead
to plant protection against early blight to be closely
related to the interaction of host and pathogen [Zaitlin
and Palukaitis, 2000]. The results presented here
indicate the occurrence of a phenological asynchrony,
that is, a close relation between the period of disease
appearance and the shortening of vegetative growth
stage [Vázquez, 2003], leading to decreasing disease
effects in tomato plants.
It is interesting to note that the magnetic treat-
ments induced an improvement in dry matter partition-
ing to fruits in plants from magnetically exposed seeds,
resulting in an improvement of mean fruit weight. This
effect agrees with the results of Esitken and Turan

TABLE 6. Effect of Pre-Sowing Magnetic Treatments on Final Dry Weights of Leaves, Stem, and Fruits. Data Were Collected
120 Days After Transplanting. The Contribution (%) of Leaves, Stem, and Fruits in Total Dry Weight Is Given in Brackets (2002–
2003, 2003–2004)

T1 T2 Control

Final dry weights (gm2) 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 2002–2003 2003–2004 ASE () CV (%)
a a a a b b
Leaf dry weight 306 (30) 300 (31) 310 (30) 304 (31) 289 (33) 270 (33) 5.3 3.8
Stem dry weight 122 (13)a 117 (13)a 125 (13)a 120 (13)a 110 (13)b 102 (12)b 4.1 7.0
Fruit dry weight 577 (57)a 515 (56)a 584 (57)a 531 (56)a 453 (54)b 448 (55)b 16.0 12.6
Total dry weight 1005a 932a 1099a 955a 852b 820b 24.2 9.3
In rows, means followed by the same letter did not show significant differences (P <.05) according to the Newman–Keuls test. ASE,
average standard error of mean; CV, coefficient of variation. Data are mean of 80 plants per treatment.
 MFs Stimulate Plant Growth and Yield Parameters 255
TABLE 7. Effect of Pre-Sowing Magnetic Treatments on Crop Yield for 2002–2003

Variables measured T1 T2 Control ASE () CV (%)

a a a
Number of harvested fruits per plant 16.2 16.0 14.8 0.9 7.6
Mean fruit weight (g) 99.8a 100.3a 85.6b 2.1 8.2
Fruit yield per plant (kg) 1.60a 1.62a 1.26b 0.10 14.1
Fruit yield per area (kg/m2) 32.5a 32.8a 25.2b 2.3 14.7
Equatorial diameter of fruits (cm) 5.5a 5.9a 4.7b 0.08 10.3
In the rows, means followed by the same letter did not show significant differences (P <.05), according to Newman–Keuls test. ASE,
average standard error of mean; CV, coefficient of variation. Data are means of 80 plants per treatment.

[2004], who found an increase in mean fruit weight of
strawberry induced by MFs. However, the smaller
fraction of dry matter distributed to the fruits in control
plants was compensated for by increased vegetative
growth. The partitioning of dry matter to the fruits
presented in this work was lower than that reported by
De Koning [1993] for a commercially grown tomato
crop over the whole season (72%).
The considerable improvement of fruit yield per
plant and per area resulted from an increase in mean
fruit weight induced by magnetic treatments. Similar
effects have been reported on flax, buckwheat, sun-
flower, pea, wheat, tomato, pepper, soybean, cotton, and
strawberry yield parameters by Gubbels [1982];
Grabrielian [1996]; Patent RU [1997]; Phirke et al.
[1996, 1998]; Pietruszewski [1999]; Ogólnej et al.
[2002]; Vasilevski [2003]; Leelapriya et al. [2003];
Esitken and Turan [2004].
The enhancement in growth and yield of tomato
in plants derived from magnetically treated seeds with
full-wave rectified sinusoidal non-uniform MFs may
be attributed to an energetic excitement of one or more
parameters of the cellular substratum (proteins and
carbohydrates) or water inside the dry seeds by the
direct effect of MFs. Once the magnetically exposed
seeds acquire water, the activation and production
process of enzymes and hormones and the level of
seed-store auxin could be enhanced as a result of the
initial stimulation, leading to an improvement of the
seed germination, vegetative growth, and yield as
shown in our previous results [De Souza et al., 1999,
2005]. It seems that the combined effect of amplitude,
gradient, and high frequency of the non-uniform MFs
applied to the dry seeds for a brief exposure could
induce so-called ‘‘ponderomotive effects’’ that affect
biological material. This might lead to the change of
one or more parameters that affect the enzymatic
activity, transport of the assimilates, and growth
regulators (auxin-activating mechanism) that could
have an effect on late plant development as an indirect
effect of the initial magnetic stimulation. Xiao-ju and
Guo [1999] found an increase in the activity of the
catalase and peroxidase in magnetically treated
tomato seeds and Xia and Guo [2000] observed the
same effects on peroxidase activity in Leymus
chinensis seeds exposed to MF. MFs could increase
the auxin content of tomato plants and also the activity
of the enzymes that control the local extension of the
plant cell walls [Mitrov et al., 1988].
CONCLUSIONS
In spite of the influence of weather and sources of
disease infection, the results in this study indicate that
the combined effect of amplitude, gradient, and high
frequency of the pre-sowing magnetic treatments
applied to the dry seeds enhance the growth and
development of tomato plants, and improve their fruit
yield and yields parameters. On the other hand, there
was also a significant delay in the appearance of first
symptoms of geminivirus and early blight and a
reduction of infection rate of early blight.

TABLE 8. Effect of Pre-Sowing Magnetic Treatments on Crop Yield for 2003–2004

Variables measured T1 T2 Control ASE () CV (%)

a a a
Number of harvested fruits per plant 15.3 15.8 15.0 0.12 6.2
Mean fruit weight (g) 96.2a 97.0a 83.4b 2.0 6.4
Fruit yield per plant (kg) 1.48a 1.50a 1.24b 0.06 10.7
Fruit yield per area (kg/m2) 29.2a 30.0a 24.0b 1.8 13.1
Equatorial diameter of fruits (cm) 5.0a 5.2a 4.3b 0.06 10.2
In the rows, means followed by the same letter did not show significant differences (P <.05), according to Newman–Keuls test. ASE,
average standard error of mean; CV, Coefficient of variation. Data are means of 80 plants per treatment.
256 De Souza et al.
REFERENCES
Aladjadjiyan A. 2002. Study of the influence of magnetic field on
some biological characteristics of Zea mais. JCEA 3(2):
89–94.
Boe AA, Salunke DK. 1963. Effects of magnetic fields on tomato
rippening. Nature 199:91–92.
Bolognani L, Francia F, Venturelli T, Volpi N. 1992. Fermentative
activity of cold-stressed yeast and effect of electromagnetic
pulsed field. Electro-Magnetobiol 11(1):11–17.
Carbonell MV, Martinez E, Amaya JM. 2000. Stimulation of
germination in rice (Oryza sativa L.) by a static magnetic
field. Electro-Magnetobiol 19(1):121–128.
Celestino C, Picazo ML, Toribio M. 2000. Influence of chronic
exposure to an electromagnetic field on germination and
early growth of Quercus Suber seeds: Preliminary study.
Electro-Magnetobiol 19(1):115–120.
Cho EG, Kweon SJ, Suh DY, Suh HS, Lee SK, Sohn JK, Oh JF. 1992.
Studies of utilization of magnetic force in agricultural genetic
engineering. Research Reports of The Rural Development
Administration. Biotechnology (Korea Republic) 34(1):10–
14.
Cornide MT, Izquierdo F. 1979. Study of resistance against early
blight of tomato varieties and lines for two sowing seasons
under field condtions, (in Spanish). J Biol Sci CENIC
10(1):57–76.
De Koning ANM. 1993. Growth of a tomato crop: Measure-
ments for model validation. Acta Horticulturae 328:141–
146.
De Souza A. 2002. Final report of research project ‘‘Increase of
vegetable productivity cultivated under organoponic condi-
tions and small extensions by pre-sowing magnetic treatment
of seeds.’’ Agricultural Research Institute ‘‘Jorge Dimitrov’’,
Bayamo, Cuba.
De Souza A, Casate R, Porras E. 1999. Effect of magnetic treatment
of tomato seeds (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) on
germination and seedling growth, (in Spanish). Invest Agr
Prod Prot Veg 14(3):67–74.
De Souza A, Garcia D, Sueiro L, Fernández Y, Zaldivar N, Licea L,
Porras E. 2004. Stimulation of tomato plant growth and
development (Vyta) by pre-sowing magnetic treatments in
late season, (in Spanish). Alimentaria J Food technol Hyg
351:99–104.
De Souza A, Garcia D, Sueiro L, Licea L, Porras E. 2005. Pre-spwing
magnetic treatments of tomato seeds: Effects on the growth
and yield of plants cultivated late in the season. Spanish JAgric
Res 3(1):113–122.
E WS, Lian CC, Zhang JL, Shi EE. 1991. Effects of magnetization of
the main characters of soybean. Oil Crops China 4:16–38.
Ceres, Bucureto.
Esitken A, Turan M. 2004. Alternating magnetic field effects on
yield and plant nutrient element composition of strawberry
(Fragaria x ananassacv. Camarosa). Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica B 54(3):135–139.
Garcia D, De Souza A, Sueiro L. 2002. Effect of magnetic treatment
of onion (Allium cepa L.) seeds on germination and seedling
growth, (in Spanish). Alimentaria J Food Technol and Hyg
337:181–186.
Gemishev TM, Tlosva KN. 1982. Effect of magnetic seed treatment
on the respiration of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.).
Fiziologya No Rastenyata VIII 3:66–73.
Goodman EM, Greenebaum B, Marron MT. 1995. Effects of
electromagnetic fields on molecules and cells. Int Rev Citol
158:279–338.
Grabrielian ShJ. 1996. The sowing qualities of seeds and
productivity of agricultural plants at action by magnetic
fields. Ph.D. Thesis, The Stavropol Agriculture Academy,
Stavropol, p 24.
Gubbels GH. 1982. Seedling growth and yield response of flax,
buckwheat, sunflower and field pea after preseeding
magnetic treatment. Can J Plant Sci 62(1):61–64.
Gutzeit HO. 2001. Biological effects of ELF-EMF enhanced
stress response: New insights and new questions. Electro-
Magnetobiol 20(1):15–26.
Hoff AJ. 1981. Magnetic field effects on photosynthetic reactions.
Quat Rev Biophys 14(4):599–665.
Hunt R. 1990. Basic growth analysis. London: Unwin Hyman.
pp 112.
ISTA. 1999. International rules for seed testing. Seed Sci Technol
24(suppl). pp 333.
Jovanič BR, Sarvan MZ. 2004. Permanent magnetic field and plant
leaf temperature. Electromagnetic Biol Med 23:1–5.
Jristova M. 1986. Irradition techniques in agriculture and food
industry. In: Memories of 2nd School for Current Problems of
Nuclear Sciences,’’ (in Spanish). Information Center for
Nuclear Energy, Section II: Application of Nuclear Techni-
ques for the National Economy, University of Havana, pp 87–
113.
Kavi PS. 1977. The effect of magnetic treatment of soybean seed on
its moisture sorbing capacity. Sci Cult 43:405–406.
Lednev VV. 1991. Possible mechanism for the influence of weak
magnetic fields on biological systems. Bioelectromagnetics
12:71–75.
Leelapriya T, Dhilip KS, Sanker Narayan PV. 2003. Effect of weak
sinusouidal magnetic field on germination and yield of cotton
(Gossypium spp.). Electromagnetic Biol and Med 22:117–
125.
Liboff AR, McLeod BR. 1987. Kinetics of channelized membrane
ions in magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 9:39–51.
Martinez E, Carbonell MV, Amaya JM. 2000. A static magnetic field
of 125 mT stimulates the initial growth stages of barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.). Electro-Magnetobiol 19(3):271–
277.
Masafumi M, Takuya A, Waturu T. 1998. Primary root growth rate
of zea mays seedlings grown in an alternating magnetic field
of different frequencies. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 44:271–
273.
McLeod BR, Liboff AR, Smith SD. 1992. Biological systems in
transition: Sensitivity to extremely low-frequency fields.
Electro Magnetobiol 11(1):29–42.
Ministry of Agriculture (MINAG). 1995. Technical Instructive for
Tomato Crop. Havana City: Minagri Press.
Mitrov PP, Kroumova Z, Baidanova VD. 1988. Auxin content of
corn and tomato plants following magnetic treatments.
Fiziologya No Rastenyata 14:18–23.
Moon JD, Chung HS. 2000. Acceleration of germination of tomato
seed by applying AC electric and magnetic fields. J Electro-
statics 48:103–114.
Murguido C, González G, Vázquez L, Nieves C. 1996. Questions
and answers on trasmitter whitefly (Besimia tabaci Genna-
dius) of tomato yelow leaf curl virus (TYLCV), (in Spanish).
Research Institute for Plant Health. Editorial Ministry of
Agriculture, Havana City, Cuba. pp 11.
Nazar ASMI, Paul A. 1995. Frequency dependent alterartion of
enolase activity by electric, magnetic, and combined EM
ELF. Proc. 17th Ann Mtg. BEMS, Boston, Mass.
Ogólnej K, Uprawy R, Rolnieza A. 2002. The effect of magnetical
biostimulation of sowing material od spring wheat on its

development and crops. Folia Univ Agric Stetin Agricultura
226(90):77–82.
Osipova LD. 1990. Influence of magnetic field on fruit-bearing
callus tissue, (in Russian). Biull Cent Ord Trud Krasn Zn
Genet Lab Im Michurina 49:22–25.
Patent RU 2083074 C1. 1997. Method of the presowing seed
proccesing of grain and vegetables, prelanding and after-
harvesting proccesing of a potatoes.
Phirke PS, Umbarkar SP. 1998. Influence of magnetic treatment
of oil seed on yield and dry matter. PKV Res J 22(1):130–
132.
Phirke PS, Patil MN, Umbarkar SP, Dudhe YH. 1996. The
application of magnetic treatment to seeds: Methods and
responses. Seed Sci Technol 24:365–373.
Pietruszewski ST. 1993. Effect of magnetic seed treatment on yields
of wheat. Seed Sci & Technolog 21:621–626.
Pietruszewski ST. 1999. Effect of alternating magnetic field on
germination, growth and yield of plant seeds. Inzynieria
Rolnicza 5(11):209–215.
Popp FA. 1994. Electromagnetism and living systems. In: Ho MW,
Popp FA, Warnke U, editors. Bioeletrodynamics and
biocommunication. New Jersey, London, Hong Kong: World
Scientific, Singapore.
Potts MD, Parkinson WC, Nooden LD. 1997. Raphanus sativus and
electromagnetic fields. Bioeletrochem Bioenerg 44:131–141.
Reddy PR. 1977. Magnetic energy as a source to improve the crop
productivity. In Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Improving Crops and Animal Productivity by Nuclear and
Allyed Techniques, pp 242–250.
Reed D. 1993. Effects of 76 Hz electromagnetic fields on tree
growth. Proc. Annual Review of Research on Biological
Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields from Generation,
Delivery and Use of Electricity, 31 October to 4 November.
Savannah, GA: US Dept. of Energy, Michigan Technological
University Press, pp 42–43.
Reina FG, Pascual LA, Fundora IA. 2001. Influence of a stationary
magnetic field on water relations in lettuce seeds. Part II:
Experimental results. Bioelectromagnetics 22:596–602.
Ruzič R, Berden M, Jerman I. 1998. The effects of oscillating
electromagnetic fields on plants. Summary Report Proc. First
World Congress on the Bioeffects of Electricity and Magnet-
ism on the Natural World, Madeira, UK, 1–6 October.
Scott JW, Schuster DJ. 1991. Screening of accessions for resistance
to the Florida tomato geminivirus. Tomato Genetics
Cooperative Report 41:48–50.
MFs Stimulate Plant Growth and Yield Parameters 257
Socorro A, Gil M, Labrada A, Dı́az C, Lago E. 1999. Cell model of
seed tissue treated with magnetic field. II International
Symposium on Nuclear and Related Techniques in Agricul-
ture, Industry and Environment. Editorial of Ministry of
Science, Technology and Environment, La Habana, Cuba,
26–29 October.
Stell RGD, Torrie JH. 1992. Biostatistics. Principles and proce-
dures. 2nd edition. Interamericana de Mexico, SA: McGraw
Hill.
Townsend GR, Heuberger JW. 1945. Methods for estimating losses
caused by diseases in fungicides experiments. Plant Dis Rep
27:340–343.
USDA. 2003. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 9th edition. Washington, DC:
NRCS. pp 332.
Vázquez L. 2003. Integrated management of plants. Questions and
answers for farmers. Editorial CIDISAV, INISAV. Havana
City, Cuba. pp 566.
Vasilevski G. 2003. Prespectives of the application of biophysical
methods in sustainable agriculture. Bulg J Plant Physiol 2:
179–186.
Wójcik S. 1995. Effect of the pre-sowing magnetic biostimulation of
the Buckwheat seeds on the yield and chemical composition
of Buckwheat grain. Current Adv Buckwheat Res 93:667–
674.
Weaver JC. 1993. Combined environmental exposures to chemicals
and transient magnetic fields: A hypothesis for possible
human health hazards. Proc. Bioelectromagnetics Society,
16th Annual Meeting, 12–16 June 1993, Copenhagen,
Denmark. pp 36.
Wittekind E, Broers D, Kraepelin G, Lamprecht I. 1990. Influence of
non-thermic AC magnetic fields on spore germination in a
dimorphic fungus. Radiat Environm Biophys 29:143–152.
Xia L, Guo J. 2000. Effect of magnetic field on peroxidase activity
and isoenzyme in Leymus chinensis. Ying Yong Sheng Tai
Xue Bao 11:699–702.
Xiao-ju MM, Guo YG. 1999. Study on the effect of tomato seeds
physiology and biochemistry with magnetic field treatment.
Bulletin Botanical Res 99:1–8.
Yandell J. 1997. Practical Data Analysis for Designed Experiments.
London: Chapman & Hall Press.
Yaoita M, Wada T. 1995. Electrochemical study of enzymatic
reaction of glucose oxidase in magnetic fields. Proc. 17th
Ann Mtg. BEMS, Boston, Mass.
Zaitlin M, Palukaitis P. 2000. Advances in understanding plant virus
diseases. Annu Rev Phytopath 38:117–143.