Impacts of Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field on Lettuce: Evidence for Interference with Plant Stress Responses

2023 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 535

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2023

Study typeanimal

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Impacts of Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field on Lettuce: Evidence for Interference with Plant Stress Responses Tran NT, Jokic L, Keller J, Geier JU, Kaldenhoff R. Impacts of Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) on Lettuce (Lactuca sativa)-Evidence for RF-EMF Interference with Plant Stress Responses. Plants (Basel). 2023 Feb 28;12(5):1082. doi: 10.3390/plants12051082. Abstract The increased use of wireless technology causes a significant exposure increase for all living organisms to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). This comprises bacteria, animals, and also plants. Unfortunately, our understanding of how RF-EMF influences plants and plant physiology remains inadequate. In this study, we examined the effects of RF-EMF radiation on lettuce plants (Lactuca sativa) in both indoor and outdoor environments using the frequency ranges of 1890-1900 MHz (DECT) at 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz (Wi-Fi). Under greenhouse conditions, RF-EMF exposure had only a minor impact on fast chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics and no effect on plant flowering time. In contrast, lettuce plants exposed to RF-EMF in the field showed a significant and systemic decrease in photosynthetic efficiency and accelerated flowering time compared to the control groups. Gene expression analysis revealed significant down-regulation of two stress-related genes in RF-EMF- exposed plants: violaxanthin de-epoxidase (VDE) and zeaxanthin epoxidase (ZEP). RF-EMF-exposed plants had lower Photosystem II's maximal photochemical quantum yield (FV/FM) and non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) than control plants under light stress conditions. In summary, our results imply that RF-EMF might interfere with plant stress responses and reduced plant stress tolerance. Excerpt Our findings highlight the need for scientific studies on the effects of RF-EMF in plants under realistic scenarios. Significant RF-EMF effects could only be detected under outdoor settings. If we had conducted our experiments exclusively in the greenhouse, these effects would have gone unnoticed. Furthermore, the potential interaction between RF-EMF and other stressors requires further, more thorough investigation. Such connections, if verified, would have major consequences. We could expect in the near future both, the massively increased applications of wireless devices as well as a significant upsurge in weather extremes and insect outbreaks because of climate change. These two factors and their interconnections might have significant impacts for plants and endanger both our food security and the stability of our ecosystems. Open access paper: mdpi.com

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeanimal

Effect directionmixed

PopulationLettuce plants (Lactuca sativa) in indoor (greenhouse) and outdoor (field) environments

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureRF

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

The study tested RF-EMF exposures at 1890–1900 MHz (DECT), 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz (Wi‑Fi) in greenhouse and field settings. In the greenhouse, RF-EMF had only minor impact on fast chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics and no effect on flowering time. In the field, RF-EMF-exposed plants showed decreased photosynthetic efficiency, accelerated flowering, down-regulation of VDE and ZEP, and lower FV/FM and NPQ under light stress compared with controls.

Outcomes measured

Chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics
Plant flowering time
Photosynthetic efficiency
Gene expression of stress-related genes (VDE, ZEP)
Photosystem II maximal photochemical quantum yield (FV/FM)
Non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) under light stress

Limitations

Sample size not reported in the abstract
Exposure duration and dosimetry (e.g., SAR/power density) not reported in the abstract
Results differed by setting (greenhouse vs field), suggesting context dependence and potential confounding by environmental factors

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "animal",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "RF",
    "source": "DECT and Wi‑Fi",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Lettuce plants (Lactuca sativa) in indoor (greenhouse) and outdoor (field) environments",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics",
    "Plant flowering time",
    "Photosynthetic efficiency",
    "Gene expression of stress-related genes (VDE, ZEP)",
    "Photosystem II maximal photochemical quantum yield (FV/FM)",
    "Non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) under light stress"
  ],
  "main_findings": "The study tested RF-EMF exposures at 1890–1900 MHz (DECT), 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz (Wi‑Fi) in greenhouse and field settings. In the greenhouse, RF-EMF had only minor impact on fast chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics and no effect on flowering time. In the field, RF-EMF-exposed plants showed decreased photosynthetic efficiency, accelerated flowering, down-regulation of VDE and ZEP, and lower FV/FM and NPQ under light stress compared with controls.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in the abstract",
    "Exposure duration and dosimetry (e.g., SAR/power density) not reported in the abstract",
    "Results differed by setting (greenhouse vs field), suggesting context dependence and potential confounding by environmental factors"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "RF-EMF",
    "DECT",
    "Wi-Fi",
    "1890-1900 MHz",
    "2.4 GHz",
    "5 GHz",
    "lettuce",
    "Lactuca sativa",
    "photosynthesis",
    "chlorophyll fluorescence",
    "flowering time",
    "stress response",
    "VDE",
    "ZEP",
    "FV/FM",
    "NPQ"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.3390/plants12051082
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library