Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, Vol. 48, No. 6, 2001, pp. 709–715. Translated from Fiziologiya Rastenii, Vol.

48, No. 6, 2001, pp. 821–828.

Original Russian Text Copyright © 2001 by Novitsky, Novitskaya, Kocheshkova, Nechiporenko, Dobrovol’skii.

Growth of Green Onions in a Weak Permanent Magnetic Field

Yu. I. Novitsky, G. V. Novitskaya, T. K. Kocheshkova,
G. A. Nechiporenko, and M. V. Dobrovol’skii
Timiryazev Institute of Plant Physiology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Botanicheskaya ul. 35, Moscow, 127276 Russia;
fax: 7(095) 977-8018; e-mail: ifr@ippras.ru
Received October 2, 2000

Abstract—Effect of a weak permanent magnetic field (PMF) with a strength of 403 A/m on Allium cepa L.
bulb sprouting and leaf growth was investigated. Two onion varieties to produce green onions (cv. Arzamasskii)
and bulb onions (cv. Ryazanskii) were examined. In addition, the content of chlorophyll, carbohydrates, and
protein in the leaves of the control and PMF-treated plants were determined. The plants of the control group
were grown under a natural geomagnetic field. The treatment of onions with PMF accelerated sprouting and
extended the length of the fourth leaf in cv. Arzamasskii as much as 40%; the first leaf in cv. Ryazanskii was
lengthened by 25% with respect to its length in untreated plants. Exposure to PMF increased the number of
sprouts in cv. Ryazanskii and the number of sprout bunches in cv. Arzamasskii. In addition, PMF elevated the
total content of chlorophyll and protein, expressed per fresh weight of green onions, but had no effect on the
total content of carbohydrates. Conversely, PMF reliably reduced the total content of chlorophyll and protein
in cv. Ryazanskii. The temperature increase diminished the effects of PMF.

Key words: Allium cepa - weak permanent uniform horizontal magnetic field - growth

INTRODUCTION
Most researchers concerned with plant growth in
magnetic fields analyzed seed germination in darkness
as a test [1]. It was noted that magnetic fields affect cell
division [2, 3], cell extension [3], and cell differentia-
tion [4, 5]. In many studies of magnetic field effects on
plant growth, seeds were germinated on agarified
media or water.
In some experiments, reliable growth responses to a
weak magnetic field were observed on structurally
homogenous materials, such as coleoptile segments
devoid of the cell division zone. The effect of a weak
magnetic field on growth under natural conditions is
insufficiently investigated to date.
Lebedev et al. [6] studied the effect of a permanent
magnetic field (PMF) on growth of barley seedlings and
showed that PMF at a strength of about 47 A/m sup-
pressed the gain in weight of shoots and roots. It was
also noted that the root system is more sensitive to weak
magnetic fields than the aboveground parts of a plant
[1].
In an earlier study [7], it was found that vertically
oriented uniform PMF (approx. 1500 A/m) exerted
either stimulatory or inhibitory effects on growth of rye
roots depending on the field direction and the cultivar-
specific sensitivity to PMF.
In another work with rye coleoptile segments com-
prising the elongation zone [8], the magnetic field was
applied as a strength gradient (2610–19750 A/m). It
Abbreviation: PMF—permanent magnetic field.
was shown that the increase in the field strength stimu-
lated growth in these segments, whereas the increase in
field gradient suppressed the growth.
Onion plants of different varieties and species are
sensitive to magnetic fields [1] and other geophysical
factors (e.g., disturbances of solar activity and baromet-
ric pressure) [9]. However, the effects of PMF on onion
plants were investigated under quite particular condi-
tions. In the cytological study [10], Celestre applied
strong nonuniform magnetic fields with large gradients
of strength. She noticed a retardation of root growth
under the action of PMF and a delay of mitoses. On the
contrary, some authors [11, 12] observed stimulation of
mitoses in onion seedlings exposed to strong PMF
(~158 × 103 A/m) and oriented by their radicles to the
southern magnetic pole.
Unfortunately, the general morphophysiological
growth pattern in magnetic fields other than natural
geomagnetic field is only briefly outlined. Hence, it is
not clear whether the phenomena observed by cytolo-
gists, such as stimulation and retardation of cell divi-
sion, elongation, and differentiation in root and stem
cells, are accompanied by morphophysiological modi-
fications.
In this study, we attempted to reinvestigate the possi-
ble effects of weak SMP on plant growth at the morpho-
physiological level, using green onions as an example.

1021-4437/01/4806-0709$25.00 © 2001 MAIK “Nauka /Interperiodica”

710
GMF
~403 A/m
a a a a
~31 A/m
Fig. 1. View of an experimental device with Helmholtz coils
for plant growing in a permanent horizontal magnetic field.
Arrow indicates the direction of the geomagnetic field
(GMF) at an angle of 73° with the horizon. (a) Helmholtz
coils.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Leaves (sprouts) of onions (Allium cepa L., cvs.
Arzamasskii and Ryazanskii) were grown under weak
uniform horizontally oriented PMF at field strength of
403 A/m in the greenhouse of the Timiryazev Institute
of Plant Physiology in the spring–summer season of
1996. The untreated plants were grown under a natural
geomagnetic field (31–38 A/m).
The cv. Arzamasskii (second year bulbs) was des-
tined for top green onions. It featured early separation
of bulbs into cloves giving rise to green bunching
onions. Onions of the cv. Ryazanskii were grown from
sets (first year bulbs). The first growing season of set
onions is normally accomplished with the formation of
dry bulbs.
Onions were grown in rigid-vinyl plastic boxes
(0.3 m × 0.5 m) filled with humous–sodded soil. Each
box contained 28 and 54 bulbs (four rows with seven
bulbs per row and six rows with nine bulbs per row) for
cv. Arzamasskii and Ryazanskii, respectively. The
experiment with cv. Arzamasskii was performed twice.
The first and second experiments were conducted under
natural illumination during the periods of March 20 to
April 29 and from April 29 to June 6, 1996. During the
first and the second experiments, diurnal ranges of tem-
perature were 18–23 and 22–26°C, respectively. The
difference in the ambient temperatures for plants
exposed and unexposed to PMF did not exceed ±0.2°C.
To characterize the effect of PMF on the growth of
cv. Arzamasskii, we measured the following indices:
the rate of bulb sprouting, leaf length, the length incre-
ment of the tallest fourth leaf per day (elongation rate),
the kinetics of leaf elongation, and the number of
bunches developed. Differences in the number of
sprouting bulbs exposed and unexposed to PMF were
analyzed with the Fischer test for alternative distribu-
tions. In the case of cv. Ryazanskii, the following indi-
ces were used: the length of the first leaf, the length
increment of this leaf per day, and the number of leaves
per bulb. The growth rate was calculated for each leaf,
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
NOVITSKY et al.
with the subsequent selection and averaging of data.
Upon calculating these parameters, the number of vari-
ances for test and control experiments equaled the num-
ber of sprouted bulbs minus the number of rejected
variances. Morphometric measurements were termi-
nated on the 25th day after the beginning of the experi-
ment.
PMF
– In addition, we determined the total chlorophyll
+ content according to Arnon [13], sugars according to
Rougahan and Batt [14], and protein according to Brad-
ford [15]. The assays were made prior to the comple-
tion of the experiment.
To determine the chlorophyll, protein, and sugar
contents, we harvested fourth leaves of cv. Arzamasskii
and third leaves of cv. Ryazanskii on the 30th and 28th
days after sowing, when these leaves were fully devel-
oped and functionally active. Each sample for determi-
nations of chlorophyll, protein, and carbohydrates com-
prised 10 g of green onions, which corresponded to 8–
9 leaves.
Helmholtz coils, connected to a DC power source,
provided a uniform horizontal magnetic field (Fig. 1).
We calculated field intensity from the formula pre-
sented by Yanovskii [16]. Upon calibration of the coils,
we compared the calculated values with experimental
readings of the ballistic galvanometer supplied as a part
of a U-541 complex. Deviations between calculated
and experimentally measured values did not exceed
0.5% of the magnetic induction.
Weak horizontal PMF with a field strength of
~403 A/m (5.06 oersted) [1] was applied from the day
of sowing onward and was removed after accomplish-
ing the experiment. Untreated plants were grown in a
similar device disconnected from the current source. In
this case, the magnetic field strength was ~31 A/m and
was directed at an angle of 73° to the horizon (Fig. 1).
Significant differences were revealed by several
methods: by comparing mean values of empirical sam-
ples, by comparing the populations with paired treat-
ments, and by means of the chi-square criterion (χ2).
Data in tables represent mean values and their standard
errors, as well as the Student’s test values and signifi-
cance levels for the differences between treatments.
The differences were considered significant at P < 0.05.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the effect of PMF on the sprouting of
cv. Arzamasskii in experiment 1. All bulbs sprouted
within 21 days after sowing, irrespective of the PMF
treatment. At first glance, the sprouting of bulbs seems
to occur faster under the action of PMF than in
untreated samples. However, statistical analysis with
the chi-square criterion (via transforming fraction val-
ues to radians) shows that differences in the sprouting
rate between treated and untreated plants are significant
with a probability of 95% only for the growth period
from the eighth to the 19th day. Within this period, the
Vol. 48 No. 6 2001
 GROWTH OF GREEN ONIONS IN A WEAK PERMANENT MAGNETIC FIELD 711

sprouts emerged in 15 and 11 bulbs for the untreated 40

and PMF-treated groups, respectively. The number of Untreated
sprouted bulbs in PMF-treated onions was smaller 35
3
because the major part of the bulbs had already 30
sprouted over the first 12 days.
25 1
An elevated temperature (26°C), encountered in the
second experiment, facilitated on its own the sprouting 20
of cv. Arzamasskii (sprouts emerged in all 28 bulbs of
15
the control and PMF-treated samples by the end of the
14th day). At this temperature, the distinctions between 10
the untreated and PMF-treated samples were smoothed
to insignificant values throughout the observation 5

Leaf length, cm
period. Therefore, we considered it inappropriate to 0
present these data here. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
As a natural consequence of faster bulb sprouting
40
for cv. Arzamasskii under exposure to PMF, the leaf PMF
length was longer in PMF-treated plants. Figure 2 35 4
shows the elongation of the fourth leaf for cv. Arza- 2
masskii under control conditions and PMF treatment in 30
the first and the second experiments. The leaves elon- 25
gated within 22 days of observations both for control
and PMF-treated samples. The leaf length increased in 20
the first experiment from 10–15 cm on the 15th day to 15
24–32 cm on the 22nd day; in the second experiment
the leaf grew from 20–23 cm to 32–38 cm. Since the 10
temperature during the second experiment was 3–4°C
higher than in the first experiment, the elongation of the 5
leaf under control conditions occurred faster in the sec- 0
ond experiment. For onion plants exposed to PMF, the 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
same increase in temperature did not cause a substantial Plant age, day
acceleration in the leaf growth rate. This was observed Fig. 2. The fourth leaf growth in untreated and PMF-treated
four times out of five, except for the first measurement Arzamasskii onion plants.
conducted on the 15th day after sowing. (1, 2) Experiment 1 (April–May, air temperature 18–23°C).
(3, 4) Experiment 2 (May–June, air temperature 22–26°C).
Since the leaf length of PMF-treated onions in the
Bars designate 95% confidence intervals.
first experiment was significantly longer than in
untreated plants, we conclude that PMF exerted a stron-
ger effect under the lower-temperature conditions of the Table 2 (experiment 1) shows the effect of PMF on
first experiment. The elevated temperature in the sec-
ond experiment apparently had a prevailing effect on the length of the fourth leaf in green onions of cv. Arza-
leaf elongation, which smoothed the distinctions in masskii and the length of the first leaf of cv. Ryazanskii
growth rate between the untreated and PMF-treated as a function of age. At all observation periods, the leaf
plants. length in PMF-treated plants was reliably higher than

Table 1. Effect of PMF on bulb sprouting (cv. Arzamasskii)

Number of sprouted bulbs
Days after sowing % of control bulbs F* P**
control bulbs PMF-treated bulbs
6 4 9 225 2.66 >0.05
7 9 14 156 1.90 >0.05
8 11 17 155 2.76 >0.05
12 15 23 153 5.28 <0.05
15 24 28 117 8.24 <0.01
19 26 28 108 4.61 <0.05
21 28 28 100 0 >0.05
Note: Data represent experiment 1 (18–23°C).
* The value of Fisher criterion.
** Confidence level for significant differences.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 6 2001

712 NOVITSKY et al.

Table 2. Effect of PMF on the fourth leaf length in cv. Arzamasskii and the first leaf length in cv. Ryazanskii onions (cm)
Days after sowing Control plants PMF-treated plants % of control plants t P
cv. Arzamasskii*
15 10.7 ± 1.6 15.2 ± 1.5 142 2.78 <0.01
16 13.0 ± 1.7 17.9 ± 1.5 138 2.96 <0.008
19 20.3 ± 2.1 27.7 ± 1.2 137 3.68 <0.001
21 21.8 ± 2.1 31.2 ± 1.2 143 3.89 <0.001
22 24.0 ± 2.1 32.6 ± 1.3 136 3.48 <0.001
cv. Ryazanskii**
7 7.6 ± 0.5 9.6 ± 0.6 126 2.58 <0.02
14 21.4 ± 0.6 26.6 ± 0.8 112 2.95 <0.01
21 38.2 ± 0.6 40.7 ± 0.6 107 2.94 <0.01
Note: Data represent experiment 1 (18–23°C).
* n for each treatment corresponds to the number of sprouted bulbs (see Table 1).
** n for each treatment is 54.

Table 3. The daily increment in the length (cm) of the fourth leaf of cv. Arzamasskii and the first leaf of cv. Ryazanskii on-
ions under the action of PMF as a function of plant age
PMF-treated plants
Age (days) Control plants (n) % of control plants t∆(control–PMF) P∆
(n)
cv. Arzamasskii
15–16 2.4 ± 0.2 (24) 2.7 ± 0.2 (28) 113 1.07 >0.05
16–19 3.1 ± 0.2 (23) 3.2 ± 0.3 (28) 103 0.28 >0.05
19–21 3.2 ± 0.3 (26) 3.5 ± 0.2 (28) 109 0.83 >0.05
21–22 1.8 ± 0.2 (26) 1.7 ± 0.2 (25) 94 0.36 >0.05
cv. Ryazanskii
7–14 2.3 ± 0.1 (54) 2.5 ± 0.1 (54) 109 1.43 >0.05
14–21 2.0 ± 0.1 (53) 2.0 ± 0.1 (51) 100 0 –
Note: Data represent experiment 1 (18–23°C).

that in untreated plants. The difference in leaf lengths
for untreated and PMF-exposed plants of the same age,
i.e., on the 14–15th day and 21–22nd day after sowing,
was higher for cv. Arzamasskii than for cv. Ryazanskii.
In green onions of cv. Arzamasskii, significant differ-
ences in leaf length between the untreated and PMF-
treated plants persisted from the 15th to 22nd day after
sowing. In the case of cv. Ryazanskii, the difference in
leaf length between untreated and PMF-treated onions
progressively decreased with age. This does not mean,
however, that the leaf elongation rates in untreated and
PMF-treated onion plants of cv. Arzamasskii remained
unchanged within the period mentioned.
Generally, within one week of the observations
(from the 15th to the 22nd day) the leaf length in plants
of cv. Arzamasskii increased by a factor of 2.2 and 2.1
for untreated and PMF-treated plants, respectively. In
onions of cv. Ryazanskii, the leaf length increased
within the same period by a factor of 1.8 and 1.5 for
untreated and PMF-treated plants, respectively. The
absolute values of leaf elongation per week for cv.
Arzamasskii were nearly identical for untreated and
PMF-treated plants (t = 1.24; P > 0.05). For the same
period, the leaf elongation in cv. Ryazanskii was con-
siderably lower in PMF-treated onions than in
untreated plants (t = 2.06; P < 0.05).
The leaf elongation rates in green onions of cv.
Arzamasskii were equal in untreated and PMF-treated
plants, irrespective of the time of measurements, but
substantially changed with age (Table 3). These rates
reliably increased by the 21st day both in untreated
(t = 2.22, P < 0.05) and PMF-treated samples (t = 2.86,
P < 0.001), but decreased later in untreated (t = 3.89,
P < 0.001) and PMF-treated plants (t = 6.43, P < 0.001).
Apparently, these changes in the growth rate are related
to age-dependent dynamics of cell elongation in onion
leaves.
The elongation rate of the first leaf in cv. Ryazanskii
during a week (from the seventh to the 14th day) was
similar to that of the fourth leaf in cv. Arzamasskii in
the period from the 15th to the 16th day. In the period
from the 14th to the 21st day, the elongation rates of the
first leaf in cv. Ryazanskii significantly decreased both
under control conditions (t = 2.14, P < 0.05) and under

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 6 2001

 GROWTH OF GREEN ONIONS IN A WEAK PERMANENT MAGNETIC FIELD 713

Table 4. Effect of PMF and temperature on the number of bunches in green onions of cv. Arzamasskii (per bulb)

Experiment no. Age of plants, PMF-treated % of control

Control plants t∆(control–PMF) P∆
(temperature) days plants plants

1 21 2.6 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.1 127 3.13 <0.01

(18–23°C) 25 3.0 ± 0.1 3.5 ± 0.2 117 2.23 <0.05
2 14 3.0 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.2 100 0 –
(22–26°C) 25 3.4 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.2 97 0.35 <0.05
Note: n = 28.

the action of PMF (t = 3.57, P < 0.001). As indicated in DISCUSSION

the Materials and Methods section, the elongation rates
were determined for each individual leaf, and the data
obtained were subject to selection and averaging.
Therefore, the average elongation rates presented in
Table 3 do not coincide with the values calculated from
Table 2.
Table 4 illustrates the action of PMF on the number
of bunches in onions of cv. Arzamasskii as a function of
temperature. In the first experiment, at an air tempera-
ture of 18–23°C, the number of bunches in PMF-
exposed onions was higher by 17–27% than in the
untreated onions. In the second experiment, at an ambi-
ent temperature of 22–26°C, no reliable differences
between untreated and PMF-treated onions were noted.
Thus, we suppose that an elevated temperature during
the second experiment stimulated the formation of
bunches under control conditions and eliminated the
effect of PMF on bunching in green onions.
In cv. Ryazanskii, the number of leaves was higher
in the presence of PMF than in its absence (Table 5).
Table 6 lists the total content of chlorophyll, protein,
and sugars determined in the first and the second exper-
iments for untreated and PMF-treated leaves of cv.
Arzamasskii. Similar data for cv. Ryazanskii deter-
mined in the first experiment are also presented. It is
seen that PMF elevated the chlorophyll and protein
content in the fourth leaf in the first experiment, when
PMF had a stimulatory effect on the leaf growth in cv.
Arzamasskii. In the second experiment at a higher
ambient temperature, no clear effect of PMF on growth,
the chlorophyll and protein content in the fourth leaf
was observed. The values of chlorophyll and protein
content were slightly higher in the second experiment
than in the first experiment. The exposure of onions to
PMF had no effect on the content of sugars in the first
and the second experiments.
In the third leaf of cv. Ryazanskii, the chlorophyll
content was slightly reduced (by 6%) under the action
of PMF, whereas the protein content was reduced by as
much as 57%.
It is noteworthy (Table 1) that the action of PMF was
apparent from the moment of bulb sprouting: sprouting
was accelerated by PMF. The sprouting of bulbs com-
mences the realization of leaf growth potential through
cell elongation. The stimulating effect of PMF is tem-
poral and is only observed until the sprouting of
untreated bulbs is accomplished. At an elevated temper-
ature (in the second experiment), no acceleration of
bulb sprouting was observed. The bulb sprouting was
accomplished within a shorter period, which is indica-
tive of competitive relations between the elevated tem-
perature and PMF as factors promoting the initiation of
cell extension.
On the 21st day after sowing, the length of the first
leaf in green onions of cv. Ryazanskii was substantially
higher than that of the fourth leaf in cv. Arzamasskii
(Table 2) both under control conditions (by a factor of
1.75) and in PMF-treated plants (by a factor of 1.3).
This is partly explained by the fact that the fourth leaf
in cv. Arzamasskii onions was younger than the first
leaf in onions of cv. Ryazanskii. In our experiments,
PMF reliably (by 43%) stimulated the elongation rate
of the longest fourth leaf in Arzamasskii onions,
whereas in Ryazanskii onions, the first leaf length in
PMF-treated plants exceeded its length in untreated
plants only by 7%. The extension growth in the first leaf
of cv. Ryazanskii started earlier than that in the fourth
leaf of cv. Arzamasskii; hence, the observed effect of
PMF was manifested at different stages of extension
growth.
Within the first two weeks after sowing, the growth
of leaf in cv. Ryazanskii proceeded faster under the
Table 5. Effect of PMF on the number of leaves in green on-
ions of cv. Ryazanskii at the 21st day from sowing (per bulb)
PMF- % of
Control
Parameter treated control t∆(control–PMF) P∆
plants
plants plants
Number 3.6 ± 0.2 4.2 ± 0.1 117 2.68 <0.01
of leaves
Note: n = 54. Data represent experiment 1 (18–23°C).

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 6 2001

714 NOVITSKY et al.

Table 6. Effect of PMF on the content of chlorophyll, protein, and sugars in the onion leaf of cv. Arzamasskii onion and
Ryazanskii (mg/g fr wt)
% of control
Characteristics Control plants PMF-treated plants t∆(control–PMF) P∆
plants
cv. Arzamasskii*
Experiment 1
Chlorophyll 0.27 ± 0.01 0.46 ± 0.01 172 16.84 <0.01
Protein 0.78 ± 0.07 1.30 ± 0.14 168 3.38 <0.01
Sugars 92.7 ± 4.3 83.5 ± 5.1 90 1.38 >0.05
Experiment 2
Chlorophyll 0.55 ± 0.01 0.56 ± 0.02 101 0.28 >0.05
Protein 2.31 ± 0.15 2.25 ± 0.08 98 0.32 >0.05
Sugars 94.5 ± 4.9 88.0 ± 5.3 93 0.90 >0.05
cv. Ryazanskii**
Experiment 1
Chlorophyll 0.55 ± 0.01 0.52 ± 0.01 94 3.01 <0.01
Protein 1.53 ± 0.20 0.65 ± 0.06 43 4.32 <0.01
Sugars 12.8 ± 2.4 7.2 ± 1.1 56 2.12 0.05
Note: Data represent mean values from three replicates (three groups, each containing 8–9 leaves from different plants) and three assays
(n = 9).
* The fourth leaf 30 days after sowing.
** The third leaf 28 days after sowing.

action of PMF than in untreated plants, but, during the
next week, the growth rate in PMF-treated samples
became lower than in the untreated plants (t = 3.24, P <
0.01). Nevertheless, the reliable difference in the leaf
length, established in the first weeks, between the
untreated and PMF-treated plants remained until the
end of experiment. In the last day of measurements, the
rate of leaf elongation in cv. Arzamasskii sharply
decreased (Table 3). Since we compared elongation
rates for leaves representing different “branch levels,” it
should be clear that the first leaf of cv. Ryazanskii
ceased its growth earlier than the following leaves,
including the fourth leaf of cv. Arzamasskii.
Morphophysiological distinctions in growth and
development for two onions examined in this study
underlie the different economic utilization of these
varieties. As a consequence of these distinctions, the
effect of PMF appeared as an increase in the number of
leaves and the number of bunches for cv. Ryazanskii
and Arzamasskii, respectively.
Considering all the data obtained, we should admit
that the weak magnetic field is a factor exerting a reli-
able effect on leaf growth. In principle, the influence of
weak and even ultraweak magnetic fields on plant
growth is not entirely new; it was revealed long ago
[1, 2, 18]. However, the influence of PMF on leaf growth
in green onions is demonstrated here for the first time.
Both varieties first experienced a stimulatory effect
of PMF on the leaf growth. Furthermore, the stimula-
tion was apparently higher in cv. Arzamasskii than in
cv. Ryazanskii. It remains unclear whether this differ-
ence resulted from various growth rates in similar
leaves of different varieties or whether it was due to the
time-shifted emergence of the leaves examined. It
should be noted that the effect of PMF on coleoptile
growth [8] was eliminated or even became inhibitory
upon artificial acceleration of elongation growth. The
leaf growth in onions is primarily caused by cell exten-
sion. Therefore, this process is somewhat similar to the
growth of coleoptile segments. Apparently, the poten-
tially possible (the greatest) length of the onion leaf is
attained faster under the action of PMF; this leads to the
cessation of extension growth, and PMF becomes inef-
fective. Different rates of attenuation of stimulating
effect of PMF might be also due to age-dependent fea-
tures of leaves. Since the first leaf in cv. Ryazanskii
emerged earlier than the fourth leaf in cv. Arzamasskii,
the time periods of their physiological activities did not
coincide. The final judgment about the causes of dis-
similar growth dynamics under weak PMF in different
onion varieties can be made after additional experi-
ments.
Our experiments, with the protocol adopted, can be
considered preliminary. Apart from dissimilarities in
the development of onions of various varieties (devel-
opment of bulbs or scallions), the leaves of these vari-
eties are functionally different. Physiological processes
in cv. Arzamasskii are aimed at the accumulation of
additional biomass in the form of green onions,
whereas physiological processes in cv. Ryazanskii are
responsible for the accumulation of storage substances

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY Vol. 48 No. 6 2001

 GROWTH OF GREEN ONIONS IN A WEAK PERMANENT MAGNETIC FIELD
in the growing bulb. Therefore, the total number of
leaves in cv. Arzamasskii is greater than in cv. Ryazan-
skii, the total number of bunches (see Table 4) being not
strikingly lower than the number of individual leaves in
cv. Ryazanskii (Table 5). This means that the functional
load per one leaf is higher in cv. Ryazanskii than in cv.
Arzamasskii. In the latter variety, the physiological
load in terms of biosynthesis and accumulation of bio-
mass is rapidly distributed between the newly emerged
leaves. Apparently, PMF promotes the realization of
genetically determined potentialities for growth. In the
case of the stimulatory action of PMF on leaf growth,
the capacity of leaf elongation is exhausted relatively
fast; hence, the growth proceeds faster, and the growth
period is shortened (Table 2). This might explain the
fact that the PMF effect on growth is more obvious at
the beginning of sprouting, i.e., during the emergence
of leaves and at the first stages of leaf elongation, when
the potential of leaf growth is far from its limit. In this
period, the action of PMF on growth can be eliminated
by other external factors (e.g., elevated temperature)
promoting the realization of growth potentialities. Fur-
ther investigations are needed to reveal the common tar-
gets in the action of PMF and temperature on biochem-
ical (or biophysical) processes underlying plant growth.
Thus, the magnetic field exerts dissimilar effects on
onions of different varieties; this conclusion is also
valid with respect to the content of chlorophyll and pro-
tein. At given field parameters, the extent and pattern of
the PMF effect is determined by the age of the leaf and
by specific physiological features of the particular vari-
ety. These features include the functional load per one
leaf and the associated developmental changes occur-
ring under the action of PMF.
REFERENCES
1. Novitskii, Yu.I., Parametric and Physiological Aspects of
Static Magnetic Field Action on Plants, Doctoral (Biol.)
Dissertation, Moscow: Timiryazev Inst. Plant Physiol.
Acad. Sci. USSR, 1984.
2. Novitskii, Yu.I., Strekova, V.Yu., and Tarakanova, G.A.,
The Effect of Static Magnetic Field on Plant Growth,
Vliyanie magnitnykh polei na biologicheskie ob”ekty
(Magnetic Field Influence on Organisms), Kholo-
dov, Yu.A., Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 1971, pp. 69–88.
3. Strekova, V.Yu., Mitosis and Magnetic Field, Problemy
kosmicheskoi biologii. T. 18 (The Problems of Space
Biology, vol. 18), Chernigovskii, V.N., Ed., Moscow:
Nauka, 1973, pp. 200–204.
4. Novitskii, Yu.I., Magnetic Field in Plant Life, Problemy
kosmicheskoi biologii. T. 18 (The Problems of Space
Biology, vol. 18), Chernigovskii, V.N., Ed., Moscow:
Nauka, 1973, pp. 164–188.
5. Novitskii, Yu.I., Plant Response to the Magnetic Field,
Reaktsiya biologicheskikh sistem na magnitnye polya
(The Response of Biological Systems to Magnetic
Fields), Kholodov, Yu.A., Ed., Moscow: Nauka, 1978,
pp. 117–130.
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY Vol. 48
715
6. Lebedev, S.I., Baranskii, P.I., Litvinenko, L.G., and
Shiyan, L.T., Plants in Very Weak Magnetic Field, Elek-
tronnaya obrabotka materialov, 1977, no. 3, pp. 71–73.
7. Novitskii, Yu.I. and Fedorova, O.E., The Response of
Dark-Grown Rye Seedlings to the Weak Static Magnetic
Field, Mater. 2-go Vses. soveshch. po izucheniyu vliya-
niya magnitnykh polei na biologicheskie ob’’ekty (Proc.
2nd All-Union Meet. Effect of Magnetic Fields on Bio-
logical Objects), Moscow: VINITI, 1969, pp. 162–163.
8. Novitskii, Yu.I. and Tikhomirova, E.V., The Effect of
Different Strength Magnetic Fields on the Growth of
Rye Coleoptile Segments, Mater. 3-go Vses. simp. Vli-
yanie magnitnykh polei na biologicheskie ob’’ekty (Proc.
3rd All-Union Meet. Effect of Magnetic Fields on Living
Organisms), Vasil’ev, A.S., Ed., Kaliningrad: Kalinin-
grad Gos. Univ., 1975, pp. 189–190.
9. Nanushyan, E.R. and Murashev, V.V., The Effects of
Geomagnetic Field Fluctuations upon the Changes in the
Cellular Structure of Apical Meristem in Allium cepa L.,
Biophotonics: Non-Equilibrium and Coherent Systems
in Biology, Biophysics, and Biotechnology, Moscow,
1995, pp. 477–482.
10. Celestre, M.R., Inflenza di un campo magnetico alterna-
tivo su autere di Allium cepa L., Sperm. Agr. (nuova ser.),
1958, vol. 12, pp. 1136–1149.
11. Chastokolenko, L.V. and Nemirovich-Danchenko, E.N.,
The Effect of the Natural and Weak Artificial Magnetic
Field on Living Organisms, Mater. 2-go Vses. simp. Vli-
yanie orientatsii semyan v geomagnitnom pole Zemli na
dinamiku prorastaniya i rost koreshkov luka (Proc. 2nd
All-Union Meet. Effect of Seed Orientation in the Geo-
magnetic Field on Onion Seed Germination and Root
Growth), Belgorod: Tr. Kursk. Gos. Pedog. Inst., 1973,
vol. 22 (115), pp. 98–100.
12. Nemirovich-Danchenko, E.N. and Chastokolenko, L.V.,
The Role of GMF as the Important Ecological Factor in
the Onion Seedling Response to the PMF, Mater. 3-go
Vses. simp. Vliyanie magnitnykh polei na biologicheskie
ob’’ekty (Proc. 3rd All-Union Meet. Effect of Magnetic
Fields on Living Organisms), Vasil’ev, A.S., Ed., Kalin-
ingrad: Kaliningrad Gos. Univ., 1975, pp. 186–187.
13. Arnon, D.J., Cooper Enzymes in Isolated Chloroplasts,
Plant Physiol., 1949, vol. 24, pp. 1–15.
14. Rougahan, R.G. and Batt, R.D., The Glycerolipid Compo-
sition of Leaves, Phytochemistry, 1969, vol. 8, pp. 363–369.
15. Bradford, M.M., A Rapid and Sensitive Method for the
Quantitation of Microgram Quantities of Protein Utiliz-
ing Principle of Protein–Dye Binding, Anal. Biochem.,
1976, vol. 72, pp. 248–254.
16. Yanovskii, B.M., Zemnoi magnetizm (Magnetism of the
Earth), Moscow: Gos. Izd-vo Tekhno-Teoreticheskoi
Literatury, 1953.
17. Novitskaya, G.V., Rutskaya, L.A., and Molotkov-
sky, Yu.G., Age-Dependent Changes in the Lipid Com-
position and Membrane Activity of Bean Chloroplasts,
Fiziol. Rast. (Moscow), 1977, vol. 24, pp. 35–43 (Sov.
Plant Physiol., Engl. Transl.).
18. Litvin, V.M., Growth Response of Shielded Plants to the
Weak Permanent Magnetic and Electrical Fields, Cand. Sci.
(Biol.) Dissertation, Kiev: Inst. Bioorgan. Oil Chem., 1992.
No. 6 2001