Lizards respond to an extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field.

The Journal of experimental biology · 2010 · Benefit · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

BenefitModerate evidencePaper 4378

Lizards exposed to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (6 and 8 Hz, 2.6 microT) showed a significantly higher average number of tail lifts per day compared to controls. Covering the parietal eye eliminated this response, suggesting involvement of t…

Study snapshot

PublicationThe Journal of experimental biology · 2010

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Animals from a wide range of taxa have been shown to possess magnetic sense and use magnetic compasses to orient; however, there is no information in the literature on whether lizards have either of these abilities. In this study, we investigated the behavioral responses of a diurnal agamid lizard (Pogona vitticeps) to a sinusoidal extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF; 6 and 8 Hz, peak magnetic field 2.6 microT, peak electric field 10 V m(-1)). Fourteen adult lizards were divided randomly into two groups (the EMF and control groups; each group had three males and four females). The EMF group received whole-body exposure to ELF-EMF and the control group did not. Lizards in the EMF group were exposed to ELF-EMF for 12 h per day (during the light period). The number of tail lifts was monitored beginning 3 days before exposure and ending after 5 days of exposure. For each individual, the average number of tail lifts per day was calculated. The average number of tail lifts per individual per day was greater in the EMF group than in the control group (20.7+/-6.3 and 9.1+/-4.5 tail lifts, respectively, N=7 each, P=0.02). We confirmed the reproducibility of this response by a cross-over trial. These results suggest that at least some lizards are able to perceive ELF-EMFs. Furthermore, when the parietal eye of the lizards was covered with a small round aluminum 'cap' which could block light, the tail-lifting response to ELF-EMF disappeared. Our experiments suggest that (1) lizards perceive EMFs and (2) the parietal eye may be involved in light-dependent magnetoreceptive responses.

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 typerandomized_trial

Effect directionbenefit

Populationdiurnal agamid lizard (Pogona vitticeps)

Sample size14

ExposureELF · 12 hours per day for 5 days

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 70% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

number of tail lifts per day

Limitations

Small sample size (14 lizards)
Study limited to one species of lizard
Behavioral response (tail lifts) as proxy for EMF perception may be indirect

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "12 hours per day for 5 days"
  },
  "population": "diurnal agamid lizard (Pogona vitticeps)",
  "sample_size": 14,
  "outcomes": [
    "number of tail lifts per day"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Lizards exposed to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields (6 and 8 Hz, 2.6 microT) showed a significantly higher average number of tail lifts per day compared to controls. Covering the parietal eye eliminated this response, suggesting involvement of the parietal eye in EMF perception.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (14 lizards)",
    "Study limited to one species of lizard",
    "Behavioral response (tail lifts) as proxy for EMF perception may be indirect"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.7,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field",
    "ELF-EMF",
    "lizard",
    "magnetoreception",
    "behavioral response",
    "parietal eye"
  ],
  "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: 10.1242/jeb.031609
PubMed: 20511511

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library