Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
1. Electric Forces in Biolog y
2. (McDonald, 1953)
3. (Goldsworthy, 2006)
4. (Silverstone, 2011)
5. (Uman, 1996)
6. The biophysics of plant growth in a reversed electrostatic field
7. GardenWeb
8. (Lemström, 1904)
9. The Atlantic Monthly , December 1859, p. 744-745
10. (Lamont, 1862)
11. (Lanzerotti et al., 1986)
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
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,
1982) via The Earth's Electrical Environment, Chapter 16
20. (Li- et al., 1984) via The Earth's Electrical Environment, Chapter 16
21. (Agulova, L.P. and A.M, Opalinskaya, 1990)
Search WWH ::

Custom Search