Skip to main content
Log in

The modulating effect of weak combined magnetic fields on the duration of the stages of metamorphosis of the Tenebrio molitor mealworm beetle

  • Complex Systems Biophysics
  • Published:
Biophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is shown that exposure of the mealworm beetle Tenebrio molitor pupae to combined static (42 μT) and very weak alternating (250 nT) magnetic fields has different effects on the duration of metamorphosis processes in these insects depending on the frequency of the alternating magnetic field. For instance, the exposure of pupae to weak combined magnetic fields adjusted to the frequency of ion cyclotron resonance for glutamic add (4.4 Hz) stimulated metamorphosis, with the transitional stage from pupae to imago being shorter. An inhibitory effect was observed when magnetic fields were adjusted to the frequency of ion cyclotron resonance for Ca2+ (32.2 Hz). At some frequencies, this effect was not observed. For instance, the exposure at a frequency of ion cyclotron resonance for K+ (16.5 Hz) had no noticeable effect on the duration of the pupal metamorphosis stage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. A. M. Ermakov and V. V. Lednev, Biophysics (Moscow) 55(4), 633 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. I. M. Sheiman and M. F. Shkutin, Biophysics (Moscow) 48(1), 99 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  3. V. V. Lednev, Schmidt United Institute of Physics of the Earth, Collected Papers (Moscow, 2003), pp. 130–136 [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. A. Temur’yants, N. A. Demtsun, N. S. Yarmolyuk, and K. N. Tumanyants, Uch. Zap. Tavrich. Nats. Univ. im. V.I. Vernadskogo. Ser. Biol., Khim. 22(61), No. 1, 78 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  5. K. A. Jenrow, C. H. Smith, and A. R. Liboff, Bioelectromagnetics 16, 106 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. K. A. Jenrow, C. H. Smith, and A. R. Liboff, Bioelectromagnetics 17, 467 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. V. V. Lednev, L. K. Srebnitskaya, E. N. Il’yasova, et al., Biofizika 41(4), 825 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  8. V. V. Novikov, I. M. Sheiman, and E. E. Fesenko, Biophysics (Moscow) 47(1), 114 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  9. V. V. Novikov, I. M. Sheiman, A. V. Klyubin, and E. E. Fesenko, Biophysics (Moscow) 52(2), 256 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. N. A. Belova, O. N. Ermakova, A. M. Ermakov, et al., Environmentalist 27, 411 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. N. A. Belova, A. M. Ermakov, A. V. Znobishcheva, and V. V. Lednev, Biophysics (Moscow) 55(4), 586 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. V. V. Novikov, I. M. Sheiman, and E. E. Fesenko, Biophysics (Moscow) 52(5), 498 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. V. V. Novikov, I. M. Sheiman, and E. E. Fesenko, Bioelectromagnetics 29(5), 387 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. V. V. Novikov and I. M. Sheiman, Biophysics (Moscow) 57(2), 244 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. A. Sustar and G. Schubiger, Cell 120, 383 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. M. M. Rolls, R. Albertson, H. P. Shin et al., J. Cell Biol. 2, 145 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  17. E. E. Fesenko, V. I. Popov, V. V. Novikov, and S. S. Khutsyan, Biophysics (Moscow) 47(3), 365 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. E. Fesenko, V. V. Novikov, V. V. Kuvichkin, and E. V. Yablokova, Biophysics (Moscow) 45(2), 226 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. V. Yablokova, V. V. Novikov, and E. E. Fesenko, Biophysics (Moscow) 52(2), 197 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  20. V. V. Novikov and M. N. Zhadin, Biofizika 39(1), 45 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  21. M. N. Zhadin, V. V. Novikov, F. S. Barnes, and N. F. Pergola, Bioelectromagnetics 19, 41 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. A. Pazur, Biomagnetic Res. Technol. 2, 8 (2004).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  23. N. Comisso, E. Del Giudice, A. De Ninno, et al., Bioelectromagnetics 27, 16 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. D. Alberto, L. Busso, R. Garfagnini, et al., Electromagnetic Biol. Med. 27(3), 241 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. L. Giuliani, S. Grimaldi, A. Lisi, et al., Biomagnetic Res. Technol. 6, 1 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. V. Novikov.

Additional information

Original Russian Text © V.V. Novikov, I.M. Sheiman, E.V. Yablokova, E.E. Fesenko, 2014, published in Biofizika, 2014, Vol. 59, No. 6, pp. 1157–1160.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Novikov, V.V., Sheiman, I.M., Yablokova, E.V. et al. The modulating effect of weak combined magnetic fields on the duration of the stages of metamorphosis of the Tenebrio molitor mealworm beetle. BIOPHYSICS 59, 940–943 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0006350914060153

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0006350914060153

Keywords

Navigation