Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
3. (Goldsworthy, 2006)
↩
5.
(Uman, 1996)
↩
9.
The Atlantic Monthly
,
December 1859, p. 744-745
↩
10.
(Lamont, 1862)
↩
12.
Electricity: A Popular Electrical Journal
,
Volumes 4-5, Electricity Newspaper
Company, 1893
↩
13.
(Nature, 1879)
↩
14.
(Artem, 2012)
↩
15. On the other hand, in
(Nature, 1879)
, there is a data point showing that M. Naudin
foundtheoppositetobetrue.Inhisexperiments,heclaimsthathisplantsflourished
when placed under an electrical cage. Per my understanding, I can attribute the
differences to a number of things. First, as you will see later on, plants respond
to stimuli on a species-to-species basis - what's effective for one type of plant
isn't necessarily effective for another. Second, since the details of Grandeau's and
Leclerq's experiments are not available, it's not possible to make an “apples to
apples” comparison. Because Naudin experienced a boost in output, I would posit
that his cage was actually leaky. I also suspect that his cage accumulated charge for
the plant'sbenefit via metal points located onthe topsofhiscage. Toreally test this
out, someone would need to perform a three-way experiment to see how both fare
against the control group.
↩
16. Steven Magee is a researcher interested in the harmful effects of high-frequency
electromagnetic RF radiation.
↩
17. (Blakemore, 1975) via
The Earth's Electrical Environment, Chapter 16
↩
18. (Moore, 1977; Larkin and Sutherland, 1977; Alerstam and Hö gstedt, 1983; Beason
and Nichols, 1984) via
The Earth's Electrical Environment, Chapter 16
↩
19. (e.g., Leggett, 1977; Kalmijn, 1978; Brown et al., 1979; Fainberg, 1980; Fonarev,
20. (Li- et al., 1984) via
The Earth's Electrical Environment, Chapter 16
↩
