THE EARTH’S GEOMAGNETIC FIELDS OR ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS CAN EXPLAIN BERGMANN’S, COPE’S, AND RENSCH’S RULESTsutomu Nishimura1*, Kaneo Mohri2,3, and Masanori Fukushima1 1Translational Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University,
Shogoin Kawara-cho 54, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8507, Japan
Phone: +81-75-751-3397; Fax: +81-75-751-3399
2Aichi Micro Intelligent Corporation, wanowari 1, Arao-machi, Tokai, Aichi 476-8666 Japan
3Nagoya Industrial Sciences Research Institute, 1-13 Yotsuya-dori, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi 464-0819, Japan
(Received April 23, 2008; Accepted July 9, 2008)
(Abstract)A number of ecological and evolutionary patterns or ‘rules’ dealing with body size have been proposed over the years, the most prominent being Bergmann’s rule, Cope’s rule, and Rensch’s rule. The mechanisms underlying these patterns remain enigmatic. We focused on the relationship between magnetic field (MF) exposure and animal body size because Bergmann’s rule holds that organisms tend to be larger at higher latitudes, where the geomagnetic field is more than twofold stronger than at lower latitudes. We researched the relationship between electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure and change in animal body weight using data in the literature. We conducted a meta-regression analysis to examine the impact of EMF exposure on animal weight as compared with the weight of unexposed controls. Meta-regression showed that EMF exposure had a statistically significant positive association with relative weight in males but not in females. The increase in body weight would explain Rensch’s rule. The increase in the relative weights of males would explain Bergmann’s and Cope’s rules. Over successive generations, animals would gradually gain a considerable amount of body size if environmental MF and/or EMF become stronger over the course of time, which explains Cope’s rule.
Bergmann’s rule, Cope’s rule, Rensch’s rule, SSD, magnetic field, MF, EMF, ELF, evolution, body size, body weight
1. IntroductionA number of ecological and evolutionary patterns or ‘rules’ dealing with body size have been proposed over the years, the most prominent being Bergmann’s rule (the tendency towards size increase with increasing latitude) [1-15], Cope’s rule (the tendency towards size increase within phyletic lineages) [16-25], and Rensch’s rule (which states that in many animal groups, when the male is larger than the female, sexual size dimorphism (SSD; the ratio of male to female size) increases with body size, but in groups in which the male is smaller than the female, SSD decreases with body size) [26-30]. The mechanisms underlying these patterns remain enigmatic. In the present study, we focused on the relationship between magnetic field (MF) exposure and animal body size because according to Bergmann’s rule organisms tend to be larger at higher latitudes, where the geomagnetic field (typically around 50 μT; range 20-90 μT) is more than twofold stronger than at lower latitudes. We researched the relationship between extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF) exposure and change in body weight using data in the literature. Although humans have been exposed to ELF-EMF in their daily lives from electrical appliances and power lines for about a century, ELF-EMF are also generated by geomagnetic storms , volcanic activity , earthquakes , and Schumann resonance . Thus, ELF-EMF may have an effect on evolutionary processes among animals. Although static magnetic fields (SMF) and ELF-EMF differ in terms of frequency, SMF and ELF-EMF reportedly have similar effects on growth in plants and blood pressure in animals [35-38]. Furthermore, the clinical and hygienic effects of exposure to alternating and direct current MFs (of tens of mT) on human beings have been found to be very similar . As described above, geomagnetic fields are always in a state of flux, the fluctuations are larger at higher latitudes where the geomagnetic field is stronger, and animals are always moving, so we believe that SMF and ELF-EMF are likely to have similar effects on animal body size. We hypothesize that a stronger MF and/or electromagnetic field (EMF) causes animals to become larger during evolution. In addition, we propose that Bergmann’s rule, Rensch’s rule, and Cope’s rule are all underpinned by one common factor, MF and/or EMF exposure.
2. Materials and Methods2. 1. Search strategy and inclusion criteria
For our meta-analysis, we focused initially on high-quality animal studies conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), which is made up of four charter agencies of the US Department of Health and Human Services. The NTP has conducted studies to assess the risks, especially with respect to carcinogenicity, of long-term exposure to ELF-EMF. We identified trials conducted according to the methods of the NTP study by performing a search of the MEDLINE database (1990–April 2007). The search terms used were ‘carcinogenicity’ and ‘magnetic field’, and the search was restricted to papers in English that described animal studies. The titles and abstracts of the articles identified using this process were scanned to exclude any trials that were clearly irrelevant. The full text of the remaining articles was read to determine whether they contained information on the topic of interest. The reference lists of the selected articles were reviewed for additional pertinent articles. In our analyses, we included only studies that were conducted by the NTP or according to the methods of the NTP study, which ran for 2 years, and in which animals exposed to ELF-EMF and the sham-exposed control animals (more than ~50 in each group) were dealt with in the same way, in the same room and at the same time. We did not assess the quality of the methods used in the primary studies; because the studies were conducted by the NTP or according to the methods of the NTP study, we presumed that these studies were of high quality. Two of the authors extracted the data independently. The following data were collected for each article: publication data (first author’s last name, year of publication, country in which the study was performed); study design; number of animals; animal characteristics (sex, age); interventions (magnetic flux density, duration of exposure, exposure hours/day); and weights of animals and number of survivors at each assessment time point. Differences in data extraction were resolved by consensus after referring back to the original article. Publication bias was not assessed because long-term studies conducted by the NTP or according to the methods of the NTP study tend to be published whether the results are positive or negative.
2. 2. Statistical analysis
We conducted a meta-regression analysis  to examine the impact of ELF-EMF exposure on relative weight (percentage of control weight). We defined the relative weight as the weight of animals exposed to ELF-EMF divided by the weight of control animals at the same assessment time point in the same study. We defined ELF-EMF exposure as magnetic flux density × duration of the study (weeks) × exposure hours per day. We logarithmically transformed all ELF-EMF exposure values to achieve a more symmetric distribution of values. The natural logarithm of the relative weight was the response (dependent) variable, and ELF-EMF exposure was the explanatory (potential effect modifier) variable. We used a weighted regression model so that more precise trials had a greater influence on the result of the analysis. To correspond to a meta-regression analysis, studies were weighted using the number of survivors. A P-value of 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS ver. 8 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
Our search of the MEDLINE database initially yielded nine articles; however, some of these did not specifically address the topic of our analysis and were excluded, which left six potentially relevant articles. We read the full text of these articles and checked the reference lists for other relevant articles. We identified four trials that were conducted by the NTP or according to the methods of the NTP [41-45]. We obtained detailed data on weight changes for the four trials from a report  and book . The general characteristics of the trials are described in Table 1. A total of 1288 rats and 1576 mice (50% female) were involved in these controlled trials: 992 rats and 1184 mice in the ELF-EMF exposure groups, and 296 rats and 392 mice in the control groups. The details of the studies are as follows. The study of Yasui et al.  was a carcinogenicity test in rats using a 50 Hz sinusoidal ELF-EMF. In that study, male and female F344 rats, 48 per exposure group, were sham exposed (sham control) or exposed to 500 μT (Group 1) or 5000 μT (Group 2) ELF-EMF for 2 years. Animals were exposed from 5 to 109 weeks of age. The average exposure time was 22.6 h/day. No significant increases in the incidence of leukemia were observed. Similarly, incidences of brain and intracranial tumors did not increase in the exposed groups. The incidences of both benign and malignant neoplasms did not differ significantly between the exposed and sham exposed groups, with one exception: fibroma of the subcutis occurred slightly more commonly in exposed male rats than in sham exposed male rats. However, this difference was considered to be not statistically significant when evaluated with respect to historical control data from the laboratory of Yasui et al.
The study of Boorman et al.  was a 2-year whole-body exposure study that was conducted to evaluate the chronic toxicity and possible oncogenicity of a 60 Hz (power frequency) ELF-EMF in rats. Groups of 100 male and 100 female F344/N rats were exposed continuously to a pure, linearly polarized, transient-free 60 Hz ELF-EMF at flux densities of 0 μT (sham control), 2 μT (Group 1), 200 μT (Group 2), or 1000 μT (Group 3). An additional group of 100 male and 100 female F344/N rats received intermittent (1 h on/1 h off) exposure to a 1000 μT ELF-EMF (Group 4). Mortality patterns, and the total incidence and number of malignant and benign tumors in all groups exposed to ELF-EMF were similar to those found in sex-matched sham controls.
The study of McCormick et al.  was a 2-year whole-body exposure study that was conducted to evaluate the chronic toxicity and possible oncogenicity of a 60 Hz (power frequency) ELF-EMF in mice. Groups of 100 male and 100 female B6C3F1 mice were exposed to a pure, linearly polarized, transient-free 60 Hz ELF-EMF at flux densities of 0 μT (sham control), 2 μT (Group 1), 200 μT (Group 2), or 1000 μT (Group 3). An additional group of 100 male and 100 female B6C3F1 mice received intermittent (1 h on/1 h off) exposure to a 1000 μT ELF-EMF (Group 4). A small but statistically significant increase in mortality was observed in male mice exposed continuously to the 1000 μT ELF-EMF, but mortality patterns in all other groups of mice exposed to ELF-EMF were comparable to those found in sex-matched sham controls. Body weight gains and the total incidence and number of malignant and benign tumors were similar in all groups.
The study of Mizuki et al.  was a whole-body exposure study that was conducted to evaluate the effect of a 50 Hz (power frequency) ELF-EMF on cancer rate in mice. Groups of 96 male and 96 female AKR mice were exposed to 50 Hz ELF-EMF at flux densities of 0 μT (sham control), 500 μT (Group 1: linearly polarized horizontal), or 500 μT (Group 2: ellipsoidal). No significant difference was detected between the exposed and sham exposed groups for each kind of tumor. Hematologically, there was no difference between the exposed and sham-exposed animals that were euthanized.
To investigate the impact of ELF-EMF exposure on relative weight, we performed a meta-regression analysis. The regression included 294 data points from four trials for both males and females. For males, we obtained an estimate that was statistically significantly different from zero for the regression coefficient of the relative weight on log ELF-EMF exposure (coefficient 0.23, standard error [SE] 0.067, p = 0.0007, intercept 97.4) (Fig. 1). The regression coefficient is the estimated increase in the relative weight per unit increase in the covariate. Thus, the relative weight is estimated to increase by 0.23 per unit increase in log ELF-EMF exposure. The estimated relative weight of the covariate can be derived from the regression equation: relative weight = 97.4 + 0.23 ×log ELF-EMF exposure. Fig. 1 shows the relative weight estimates according to log ELF-EMF exposure and shows that ELF-EMF exposure is positively associated with weight.
In females, the regression included 294 data points from four trials. For females, we obtained an estimate that was statistically significantly different from zero for the regression coefficient of the relative weight on log ELF-EMF exposure (coefficient 0.06, standard error [SE] 0.05, p = 0.25, intercept 99.5) (Fig. 2). The relative weight is estimated to increase by 0.06 per unit increase in log ELF-EMF exposure. The estimated relative weight of the covariate can be derived from the regression equation: relative weight = 99.5 + 0.06 × ELF-EMF exposure. Fig. 2 shows the relative weight estimates according to log ELF-EMF exposure and shows that ELF-EMF exposure was not associated with weight in females.
|Figure 1. Meta-regression of change in relative weight on log ELF-EMF exposure for males. The circles on the graph represent the experimental groups in the studies included; the size of the circles indicates the weighting according to the number of survivors.|
|Figure 2. Meta-regression of change in relative weight on log ELF-EMF exposure for females. The circles on the graph represent the experimental groups in the studies included; the size of the circles indicates the weighting according to the number of survivors.|
4. DiscussionWe reviewed the results of four studies in which animals exposed to ELF-EMF and animals that were sham exposed were compared over a period of 2 years. Meta-regression revealed that ELF-EMF exposure had a statistically significant positive association with weight in males (p = 0.0007), but not in females (p = 0.25). It seems clear that these body weight gains in males were caused by the effects of ELF-EMF, because food consumption did not differ between the ELF-EMF and sham exposure groups in the studies of Yasui’s and Mizuki’s groups , although the other studies did not present data on food consumption.
Regarding the mechanism of weight gain, it is interesting that mild increases in plasma thyroid hormones (e.g., thyroxine)  and prolactin  have been found in pregnant lactating dairy cows that were exposed to ELF-EMF. Thyroxine is known to play key roles in growth, metabolism, reproduction, and somatic differentiation in developing and adult animals. Also in pregnant lactating dairy cows, exposure to the electric component of these fields alone (10 kV/m) did not affect either prolactin or thyroxine . It is possible that MFs exert an effect on body size via plasma thyroxine and/or prolactin. In fact, injections of prolactin and thyroid hormones have been found to promote weight gain in male reindeer .
It is also possible that EMFs exert an effect on skeleton size via alteration of the proliferation and activity of bone cells. In support of this hypothesis, pulsed EMF stimulation has been used clinically for more than twenty-five years for the treatment of patients with delayed fracture healing and non-unions [52-57]. Furthermore, a substantial number of in vitro studies have shown that EMFs have positive effects on the proliferation and activity of bone cells [58-61].
Our results correspond with previous findings that ELF-EMF causes an increase in the body weight of mice and cattle [62-65]. Electrical fields alone did not produce any change in the body weight of pregnant lactating cows relative to unexposed controls , whereas MF did . These results suggest that MF impact on the weight gains of animals.
Our finding that ELF-EMF exposure had a statistically significant positive association with weight in males with the evidence for sex differences in a variety of effects of various types of magnetic fields [67-72]. This result would explain Rensch’s rule, which states that when the male is larger than the female, SSD increases with body size, but when the female is larger than the male, SSD decreases with body size. That is, the mean body weights of animals that are sensitive to MF would increase depending on magnetic flux density and frequency. In many mammals and birds, the male is larger than the female, which may be caused by a difference in sensitivity to MF.
Our finding that there was an increase in relative weight in males would explain Bergmann’s and Cope’s rules. The mechanism underlying Bergmann’s rule has remained a mystery to date, but at higher latitudes the geomagnetic field is more than twice as strong as at lower latitudes. Our hypothesis is that, these changes in geomagnetic fields might cause organisms to grow in size. This would explain Bergmann’s rule (the tendency towards size increase with increasing latitude). These animals would gain a considerable amount of body size over generations, if their surrounding environmental MF and/or EMF become stronger. This would explain Cope’s rule (the tendency for body size to increase over evolutionary time). We believe that the ELF-EMF generated by geomagnetic storms, volcanic activity, earthquakes, or Schumann resonance have influenced animal body size during the course of evolution. In addition, the vulnerability to extinction of animals that adhere to Cope’s rule would be explained by loss of the MF and/or EMF that supports animal body size.
Recent studies suggest that Bergmann’s rule holds not only for endothermic vertebrates [3,4,73], but also for some ectothermic vertebrates; specifically, Bergmann’s rule applies to most turtles  and salamanders . Squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes) are a clear exception: the converse Bergmann’s rule applies to most species of squamates (i.e., they are smaller in cooler climates). In contrast, recent studies suggest that Cope’s rule holds for a variety of taxa, including Cenozoic mammals [74-76] and dinosaurs . Rensch’s rule describes a pervasive macroecological pattern that has been observed in a wide range of taxa, including mites, water striders, lizards, snakes, turtles, hummingbirds, songbirds, and primates [27,29,30,78,79]. Given the fact that Cope’s rule applies to dinosaurs, which were endothermic, but not reptiles, which are generally ectothermic, it seems that endothermy is an important factor in MF effects. Of vertebrates, only mammals and birds are endothermic. If our hypothesis is correct, mammals and birds are endothermic should meet following conditions: 1) males should be larger than females; 2) they should adhere to Bergmann’s rule; and 3) their ancestors should have adhered to Cope’s rule. In fact, mammals and birds both meet all three of these conditions (if dinosaurs are regarded as the ancestors of birds). In fact, we evaluated the relationship between 1) and 2) by using data published by Blanckenhorn et al.  (Table 2). The number of classes that adhere to Bergmann’s rule and that have larger males is 18 of 23 (78.3%) mammal and bird classes, 4 of 14 (28.6%) reptile classes, and 11 of 57 (19.3%) classes of other animals. There was a statistically significant difference between the mammals and birds combined and reptiles (p=0.004; Fisher's exact test), and between the mammals and birds combined and the other animals (p <0.0001; Fisher's exact test). These results show a strong relationship between 1) and 2) for mammals and birds.
As outlined above, we believe that MF and/or EMF are fundamentally connected with animal evolution, and we have named this new field of study ‘magneto-evolution’. Because MF and/or EMF may have influenced not only animal body size but also many other characteristics, more research is needed in this new field.
|Table 1. Details of the studies included in our meta-analysis and the populations studied|
Table 2. Proportions of different animal groups that adhere to Bergmann’s rule and have larger males|
AcknowledgmentWe thank Ms. Yoko Teraguchi, Ms. Harue Tada and Dr. Satoshi Teramukai (Translational Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan) for their constructive comments and suggestions.
References1. Bergmann, C. Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thiere zuihrer Grösse, Göttinger Studien 1, 595–708 (1847).
2. Atkinson, D. and Sibly, R. M. Why are organisms usually bigger in colder environments? Making sense of a life history puzzle, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12, 235-239 (1997).
3. Ashton, K. G., Tracy, M. C. and de Queiroz, A. Is Bergmann's rule valid for mammals? The American Naturalist 156, 390-415 (2000).
4. Ashton, K. G. Patterns of within-species body size variation of birds: Strong evidence for Bergmann’s rule, Global Ecology and Biogeography 11, 505–523 (2002).
5. Ashton, K. G. Do amphibians follow Bergmann’s rule? Canadian Journal of Zoology 80, 708–716 (2002).
6. Ashton, K. G. Sensitivity of intraspecific latitudinal clines of body size for tetrapods to sampling, latitude and body size, Integrative and Comparative Biology 44, 403–412 (2004).
7. Ashton, K. G. and Feldman, C. R. Bergmann's rule in nonavian reptiles: Turtles follow it, lizards and snakes reverse it, Evolution 57, 1151–1163 (2003).
8. Park, O. Application of the converse Bergmann principle to the carabid beetle, dicaelus, Physiological Zoology 22, 359–372 (1949).
9. Mousseau, T. A. Ectotherms follow the converse to Bergmann's Rule, Evolution 51, 630–632 (1997).
10. Conover, D. O. and Present, T. M. C. Countergradient variation in growth rate: Compensation for length of the growing season among Atlantic silversides from different latitudes, Oecologia 83, 316–324 (1990).
11. Blanckenhorn, W. U. and Demont, M. Bergmann and converse Bergmann latitudinal clines in arthropods: Two ends of a continuum? Integrative and Comparative Biology 44, 413–424 (2004).
12. Blackburn, T. M., Gaston, K. J. and Loder, N. Geographic gradients in body size: A clarification of Bergmann’s rule, Diversity and Distributions 5, 165–174 (1999).
13. Geist, V. Bergmann’s rule is invalid, Canadian Journal of Zoology 65, 1035–1038 (1987).
14. Geist, V. Bergmann’s rule is invalid: A reply to J. D. Paterson, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68, 1613–1615 (1990).
15. Paterson, J. D. Bergmann’s rule is invalid: A reply to V. Geist, Canadian Journal of Zoology 68, 1610–1612 (1990).
16. McLain, D. K. Cope’s rules, sexual selection, and the loss of ecological plasticity, Oikos 68, 490–500 (1993).
17. Jablonski, D. Body-size evolution in Cretaceous mollusks and the status of Cope’s rule, Nature 385, 250–252 (1997).
18. Cope, E. D. The origin of the fittest, Appleton Press, New York, 1887.
19. Cope, E. D. The primary factors of organic evolution, Open Court Publishing, New York,1896.
20. Kingsolver, J. and Pfennig, D. W. Individual-level selection as a cause of Cope’s rule of phyletic size increase, Evolution 58, 1608–1612 (2004).
21. Bonner, J. T. Size change in development and evolution, pp. 1–15, in Macurda, D.B, Ed., Paleobiological aspects of growth and development, Paleontological Society Memoirs (Supplement to Journal of Paleontology), 1968.
22. Schmidt-Nielsen, K. Scaling: Why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1984.
23. Paul, G. S. Is there any evolutionary advantage to gigantism? Did the sauropod dinosaurs continue to grow throughout their lives, as some reptiles and fish do? Scientific American 284, 116 (2000).
24. Benton, M. J. Cope’s rule, pp. 185–186, in Pagel, M., Ed., Encyclopedia of evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
25. McKinney, M. L. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28, 495–516 (1997).
26. Rensch, B. Bonner Zoologische Beitrage 1, 58–69 (1950).
27. Abouheif, E. and Fairbairn, D. J. A comparative analysis of allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Assessing Rensch's rule, The American Naturalist 149, 540–562 (1997).
28. Kraushaar, U. and Blanckenhorn, W. U. Population variation in sexual selection and its effect on body size allometry in two species of flies with contrasting sexual size dimorphism, Evolution 56, 307–321 (2002).
29. Fairbairn, D. J. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: Pattern and process in the coevolution of body size in males and females, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28, 659–687 (1997).
30. Fairbairn, D. J. Allometry for sexual size dimorphism: testing two hypotheses for Rensch’s rule in the water strider Aquarius remigis, The American Naturalist 166, S69–S84 (2005).
31. Kaneko, M., Ed., Sympathetic nervous system research developments, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2008.
32. Ptitsyna, N. G., Villoresi, G., Dorman, L. I., Iucci, N. and Tyasto M. Natural and man-made low-frequency magnetic fields as a potential health hazard, Physics - Uspekhi 41, 687–709 (1998).
33. Johnston, M. J. S. Review of electric and magnetic fields accompanying seismic and volcanic activity, Surveys in Geophysics 18, 441–475 (1997).
34. Volland, H., Ed., Handbook of atmospheric electrodynamics, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1995.
35. Galland, P. and Pazur, A. Magnetoreception in plants, Journal of Plant Research 118, 371–389 (2005).
36. Chiuich, N. G. and Orekhova, E. M. Effect of alternating low frequency magnetic field on central hemodynamics in patients with hypertension. Voprosy Kurortologii, Fizioterapii, i Lechebnoĭ Fizicheskoĭ Kultury Mar-Apr, 35–6 (2004).
37. Nishimura, T., Mohri, K., Tada, H., Yamada, J., Suzumura, M. and Fukushima, M. Microtesla extremely low frequency magnetic fields may ameliorate hypertension. Georgian Medical News 9, 30–34 (2007).
38. Okano, H. Effects of static magnetic fields on blood pressure in animals and humans. Current Hypertension Reviews 4, 63–72 (2008).
39. Zhadin, M. N. Review of Russian literature on biological action of DC and low-frequency AC magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 22, 27–45 (2001).
40. Sharp, S. Meta-analysis regression, Stata Technical Bulletin 42, 16–24 (1998).
41. Yasui, M., Kikuchi, T., Ogawa, M., Otaka, Y., Tsuchitani, M. and Iwata, H. Carcinogenicity test of 50 Hz sinusoidal magnetic fields in rats, Bioelectromagnetics 18, 531–40 (1997).
42. Mandeville, R., Franco, E., Sidrac-Ghali, S., Paris-Nadon, L., Rocheleau, N., Mercier, G., Desy, M. and Gaboury, L.C. Evaluation of the potential carcinogenicity of 60 Hz linear sinusoidal continuous-wave magnetic fields in Fischer F344 rats, FASEB Journal 11, 1127–1136 (1997).
43. Boorman, G. A., McCormick, D. L., Findlay, J. C., Hailey, J. R., Gauger, J. R., Johnson, T. R., Kovatch, R. M., Sills, R. C. and Haseman, J. K. Chronic toxicity/oncogenicity evaluation of 60 Hz (power frequency) magnetic fields in F344/N rats, Toxicologic Pathology 27, 267–278 (1999).
44. McCormick, D. L., Boorman, G. A., Findlay, J. C., Hailey, J. R., Johnson, T. R., Gauger, J. R., Pletcher, J. M., Sills, R. C. and Haseman, J. K. Chronic toxicity/oncogenicity evaluation of 60 Hz (power frequency) magnetic fields in B6C3F1 mice, Toxicologic Pathology 27, 279–285 (1999).
45. Mizuki, T., Chida, T., Yamagishi, Y. and Otaka, Y. Cancer promotion test using AKR mice under exposure to 50 Hz linearly and ellipsoidally polarized magnetic fields. II. Results of histopathological examination, 20th Annual Meeting of BEMS, p-42-B; 125–126, Bioelectromagnetics Society, Frederick 1998.
46. National Toxicology Program. NTP studies of magnetic field promotion (DMBA Initiation) in female Sprague-Dawley rats (whole-body exposure/gavage studies), National Toxicology Program Technical Reports Series 489, 1–148 (1999).
47. Takebe, H., Shiga, T., Kato, M. and Masada, E. Health effects of electromagnetic field. Bunkodo, Tokyo1999 (In Japanese).
48. Burchard, J. F., Nguyen, D. H. and Rodriguez, R. Plasma concentrations of thyroxine in dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields, Bioelectromagnetics 27, 553–559 (2006).
49. Rodriguez, M., Petitclerc, D., Burchard, J. F., Nguyen, D. H. and Block, E. Blood melatonin and prolactin concentrations in dairy cows exposed to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields during eight-hour photoperiods, Bioelectromagnetics 25, 508-515 (2004).
50. Burchard, J. F., Nguyen, D. H., Monardes, H. G. and Petitclerc, D. Lack of effect of 10 kV/m 60 Hz electric field exposure on pregnant dairy heifer hormones, Bioelectromagnetics 25, 308–312 (2004).
51. Ryg, M. and Jacobsen, E. Effects of thyroid hormones and prolactin in food intake and weight changes in young male rein deer rangifer-tarandus-tarandus, Canadian Journal of Zoology 60, 1562–1567 (1982).
52. Bassett, C. A. L. Fundamental and practical aspects of therapeutic uses of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs), Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering 17, 451–529 (1989).
53. Eyres, K. S., Saleh, M. and Kanis, J. A. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on bone formation and bone loss during limb lengthening, Bone 18, 505–509 (1996).
54. Ryaby, J. T. Clinical effects of electromagnetic and electric fields on fracture healing, Clinical Orthopedics 355 (Suppl.), S205–215 (1998).
55. Borsalino, G., Bagnacani, M., Bettati, E., Fornaciari, F., Rocchi, R., Uluhogian, S., Ceccherelli, G., Cadossi, R. and Traina, G. C. Electrical stimulation of human femoral intertrochanteric osteotomies, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 237, 256–263 (1988).
56. Mammi, G. I., Rocchi, R., Cadossi, R., Massari, L., Traina, G. C. The electrical stimulation of tibial osteotomies, Clinical Orthopedics 288, 246–253 (1993).
57. Sharrard, W. J. W. A double-blind trial of pulsed electromagnetic fields for delayed union of tibial fractures, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (British version) 72, 347–355 (1990).
58. Bodamyali, T., Bhatt, B., Hughes, F. J., Winrow, V. R., Kanczler, J. M., Simon, B., Abbott, J., Blake, D. R. and Stevens, C. R. Pulsed electromagnetic fields simultaneously induce osteogenesis and upregulate transcription of bone morphogenetic proteins 2 and 4 in rat osteoblasts in vitro, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 50, 458–461 (1998).
59. Brighton, C. T., Wang, W., Seldes, K., Zhang, G. and Pollack, S. R. Signal transaction in electrically stimulated bone cells, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American version) 83, 1514–1523 (2001).
60. Fitzsimmons, R. J., Farley, J. R., Adey, W. R., Baylink, D. J. Frequency dependence of increased cell proliferation, in vitro, in exposures to a low-amplitude, low-frequency electric field: Evidence for dependence on increased mitogcn activity released into culture medium, Journal of Cell Physiology 139, 586–91 (1989).
61. Fitzsimmons, R. J., Ryaby, J. T., Mohan, S., Magee, F. P. and Baylink D. J. Combined magnetic fields increase insulin-like growth factor-II in TE-85 human osteosarcoma bone cell cultures. Endocrinology 136, 100–6 (1995).
62. Lin, J. C. High-tension transmission-line exposure of pregnant dairy heifers, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine 49, 202-204 (2007).
63. Gerardi, G., De Ninno, A., Prosdocimi, M., Ferrari, V., Barbaro, F., Mazzariol, S., Bernardini, D., Talpo, G. Effects of electromagnetic fields of low frequency and low intensity on rat metabolism, BioMagnetic Research and Technology 1;6:3 (2008).
64. Babbitt, J. T., Kharazi, A. I., Taylor, J. M. G., Bonds, C. B., Zhuang, D., Mirell, S. G., Frumkin, E. and Hahn, T. J. Increased body weight in C57BL/6 female mice after exposure to ionizing radiation or 60 Hz magnetic fields, International Journal of Radiation Biology 77, 875–882 (2001).
65. Rodriguez, M., Petitclerc, D., Nguyen, D. H., Block, E. and Burchard, J. F. Effect of electric and magnetic fields (60 Hz) on production, and levels of growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor 1, in lactating, pregnant cows subjected to short days, Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2843–2849 (2002).
66. Burchard, J. F., Nguyen, D. H. and Monardes, H. G. Exposure of pregnant dairy heifer to magnetic fields at 60 Hz and 30 microT, Bioelectromagnetics 28, 471–476 (2007).
67. Choleris, E., Thomas, A. W., Ossenkopp, K. P., Kavaliers, M., Valsecchi, P. and Prato, F. S. Sex differences in conditioned taste aversion and in the effects of exposure to a specific pulsed magnetic field in deer mice Peromyscus maniculatus, Physiology and Behavior 71, 237–249 (2000).
68. Carson, A. M., Denblekyer, M., Ferrence, K., Smith, J. C. and Hupt, T. A. Sex and estrous cycle differences in the behavioral effects of high strength static magnetic fields: role of ovarian steroids, American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 290, R659–R667 (2006).
69. Mitsutake, G., Otsuka, K., Hayakawa, M., Sekiguchi, M., Cornelissen, G. and Halberg, F. Does Schumann resonance affect our blood pressure? Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy 59 (Suppl. 1), S10–S14 (2005). 70. Jiang, M. L., Han, T. Z., Pang, W. and Li, L. Gender- and age-specific impairment of rat performance in the Morris water maze following prenatal exposure to an MRI magnetic field, Brain Research 995, 140–144 (2004).
71. Mulligan, S and Persinger, M. A. Perinatal exposures to rotating magnetic fields ‘demasculinize’ neuronal density in the medial preoptic nucleus of male rats, Neuroscience Letters 253, 29–32 (1998).
72. Kavaliers, M., Ossenkopp, K. P., Prato, F. S., Innes, D. G. L., Galea, L. A. M., Kinsella, D. M. and Perrot-Sinal, T. S. Spatial learning in deer mice: sex differences and the effects of endogenous opioids and 60 Hz magnetic fields, Journal of Comparative Physiology A 179, 715–724 (1996).
73. Meiri, S. and Dayan, T. On the validity of Bergmann’s rule, Journal of Biogeography 30, 331–351 (2003).
74. MacFadden, B. J. Fossil horses from ‘‘Eohippus’’ (Hyracotherium) to Equus: scaling, Cope’s law, and the evolution of body size, Paleobiology 12, 355–369 (1986).
75. Alroy, J. Cope’s rule and the dynamics of body mass evolution in North American fossil mammals, Science 280, 731–734 (1998).
76. Van Valkenburgh, B., Wang, X. and Damuth, J. Cope’s rule, hypercarnivory, and extinction in North American canids, Science 306, 101–104 (2004).
77. Hone, D. W. E., Keesey, T. M., Pisani, D. and Purvis, A. Macroevolutionary trends in the Dinosauria: Cope’s rule, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18, 587–595 (2005).
78. Cullum, A. J. Sexual dimorphism in physiological performance of whiptail lizards (genus Cnemidophorus), Physiological Zoology 71, 541–552 (1998).
79. Colwell, R. K. Rensch's rule crosses the line: convergent allometry of sexual size dimorphism in hummingbirds and flower mites, The American Naturalist 156, 495–510 (2000).
80. Blanckenhorn, W. U., Stillwell, R. C., Young, K. A., Fox, C. W. and Ashton, K. G. When Rensch meets Bergmann: Does sexual size dimorphism change systematically with latitude?, Evolution 60, 2004–2011 (2006).