91ɫƬ

Animal magnetism

Do creatures use a chemical compass to find their way?

THE internal compasses of some animals might work by detecting minute changes
in the pace of biochemical reactions in different magnetic fields, researchers
in the US suggested this week. They say their theoretical studies could
contribute to the debate on whether the electromagnetic fields of powerlines
cause diseases such as cancer.

Many creatures, including some birds, amphibians and reptiles, navigate by
sensing tiny changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. Sea turtles, for instance,
can sense changes as small as a tenth of a microtesla—less than 0.2 per
cent of the typical geomagnetic field.

But nobody knows exactly how these biological compasses work. One theory is
that the magnetite molecules found in some tissues act just like miniature
compass needles. Another is that animals sense changes in biochemical reaction
rates caused by differing magnetic fields, which are known to alter the pace of
a wide range of chemical reactions.

But no one had proved such a biochemical compass could work. As well as being
influenced by magnetic fields, reaction rates fluctuate randomly and also change
with temperature. “All organisms, warm or cold-blooded, experience temperature
variations,” says James Weaver, a biophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. “The challenge is to understand how nature would be able to sense
small magnetic field differences in the presence of all this competition.”

Weaver and his colleagues decided to find out the mathematical way. They took
equations describing a common reaction involving two reactive molecules called
free radicals. Then they looked at how much the reaction rate would be swayed by
the “noise” of random fluctuations and temperature variations in the
environment, as well as by magnetic variations like those sea turtles can
sense.

Sure enough, it turned out that a small group of cells should be able to
sense the magnetic field signal loud and clear above the noise. “An evolved
animal sensory system like this should be possible, and it could have a rather
fantastic performance,” Weaver concludes.

He hopes that theoretical work like this could shed light on whether similar
mechanisms might explain the possible, albeit contentious, health risk of
electromagnetic fields from power lines and cellphones. “That’s a big hot
potato,” says Weaver. “But it would help if we can get simple models from
physics and chemistry that give us some insight into what’s possible and what’s
Դdz.”

“From the point of view of a chemical compass, this could be very
interesting,” says Nicholas Day, an epidemiologist at the University of
Cambridge, whose studies have failed to find a link between childhood cancer and
magnetic field exposure in Britain. However, he thinks that only epidemiology
and carefully controlled lab experiments can lay the debate about the cancer
link to rest.

  • Source:
    Nature (vol 405, p 707)

More from New Scientist

Explore the latest news, articles and features