Organizing Plants
| Plant Number | Number of leaves | Number of Mature Blooms | Number of Immature Blooms |
| 1A |
30
|
1
|
2
|
| 2A |
50
|
2
|
2
|
| 3A |
25
|
1
|
2
|
| 4A |
70
|
5
|
2
|
| 5A |
30
|
2
|
3
|
| AVERAGE |
41
|
2.2
|
2.4
|
| 1B |
65
|
3
|
3
|
| 2B |
56
|
4
|
2
|
| 3B |
72
|
2
|
6
|
| 4B |
61
|
2
|
2
|
| 5B |
54
|
1
|
3
|
| AVERAGE |
61.6
|
2.4
|
3.2
|
| 1C |
35
|
2
|
3
|
| 2C |
59
|
4
|
2
|
| 3C |
60
|
3
|
2
|
| 4C |
46
|
3
|
6
|
| 5C |
29
|
2
|
3
|
| AVERAGE |
45.8
|
2.8
|
3.2
|
| 1D |
30
|
2
|
3
|
| 2D |
27
|
2
|
2
|
| 3D |
59
|
5
|
4
|
| 4D |
56
|
3
|
2
|
| 5D |
14
|
1
|
2
|
| AVERAGE |
35.2
|
2.6
|
2.6
|
| 1E |
28
|
2
|
2
|
| 2E |
48
|
5
|
5
|
| 3E |
13
|
1
|
2
|
| 4E |
35
|
4
|
3
|
| 5E |
62
|
5
|
0
|
| AVERAGE |
35.2
|
3.4
|
2.4
|
MATH:
Group A total of leaves (205) / 5 = (41) Average of leaves
Group B total of leaves (308) / 5 = (61.6) Average of leaves
Group C total of leaves (229) / 5 = (45.8) Average of leaves
Group D total of leaves (186) / 5 = (35.2) Average of leaves
Group E total of leaves (186) / 5 = (35.2) Average of leaves
Group A total of mature blooms (11) / 5 = (2.2) Average of Mature Blooms
Group B total of mature blooms (12) / 5 = (2.4) Average of Mature Blooms
Group C total of mature blooms (14) / 5 = (2.8) Average of Mature Blooms
Group D total of mature blooms (13) / 5 = (2.6) Average of Mature Blooms
Group E total of mature blooms (12) / 5 = (3.4) Average of Mature Blooms
Group A total of immature blooms(12) / 5= (2.4) Average of Immature Blooms
Group B total of immature blooms(16) / 5= (3.2) Average of Immature Blooms
Group C total of immature blooms(16) / 5= (3.2) Average of Immature Blooms
Group D total of immature blooms(13) / 5= (2.6) Average of Immature Blooms
Group E total of immature blooms(12) / 5= (2.4) Average of Immature Blooms
DATA COLLECTED
Trial 1
| Initial CO2 Concentration | Final CO2 Concentration | Change in CO2 Concentration | |
| Container A (Blue) | 150 ppm | 1397 ppm | +1247 |
| Container B (Yellow) | 150 ppm | 1155 ppm | +1005 |
| Container C (Green) | 100 ppm | 802 ppm | +702 |
| Container D (Red) | 100 ppm | 910 ppm | +810 |
| Container E (Control) | 160 ppm | 803 ppm | +643 |
MATH:
A: 1397 ppm - 150 ppm = 1247 ppm
B: 1155 ppm - 150 ppm = 1005 ppm
C: 802 ppm -100 ppm = 702 ppm
D: 910 ppm - 100ppm = 810 ppm
E: 803 ppm - 160 ppm = 643 ppm
E: 803 ppm - 160 ppm = 643 ppm
Trial 2
| Initial CO2 Concentration | Final CO2 Concentration | Change in CO2 Concentration | |
| Container A (Blue) | 308 ppm |
991 ppm
|
+683
|
| Container B (Yellow) | 524 ppm |
1167 ppm
|
+643
|
| Container C (Green) | 327 ppm |
691 ppm
|
+364
|
| Container D (Red) | 592 ppm |
931 ppm
|
+339
|
| Container E (Control) | 544 ppm |
817 ppm
|
+273
|
MATH:
A: 991 ppm - 308 ppm = 683 ppm
B: 1167 ppm - 524 ppm = 643 ppm
C: 691 ppm - 327 ppm = 364 ppm
D: 931 ppm - 592 ppm = 339 ppm
E: 817 ppm - 544 ppm = 273 ppm
| Initial CO2 Concentration | Final CO2 Concentration | Change in CO2 Concentration | |
| Container A (Blue) | 313 ppm |
831 ppm
|
+518 ppm
|
| Container B (Yellow) | 344 ppm |
852 ppm
|
+507 ppm
|
| Container C (Green) | 233 ppm |
392 ppm
|
+159 ppm
|
| Container D (Red) | 280 ppm |
644 ppm
|
+364 ppm
|
| Container E (Control) | 270 ppm |
473 ppm
|
+203 ppm
|
MATH:
A:831 ppm - 313 ppm = 518 ppm
B:852 ppm - 344 ppm = 507 ppm
C:392 ppm - 233 ppm = 159 ppm
D: 644 ppm - 280 ppm = 364 ppm
E: 473 ppm - 270 ppm = 203 ppm
E: 473 ppm - 270 ppm = 203 ppm
Trial 4:
| Initial CO2 Concentration (ppm) | Final CO2 Concentration (ppm) | Change in CO2 Concentration | |
| Container A (Blue) | 219 |
932
|
713
|
| Container B (Yellow) | 234 |
870
|
636
|
| Container C (Green) | 109 |
617
|
508
|
| Container D (Red) | 167 |
698
|
531
|
| Container E (Control) | 473 |
593
|
410
|
MATH:
A:932 ppm - 219 ppm = 713 ppm
B: 870 ppm - 234 ppm = 636 ppm
C: 617 ppm - 109 ppm = 508 ppm
D: 698 ppm - 167 ppm = 531 ppm
E: 593 ppm - 473 ppm = 410 ppm
Trial 5:
| Initial CO2 Concentration | Final CO2 Concentration | Change in CO2 Concentration | |
| Container A (Blue) | 385 |
955
|
570
|
| Container B (Yellow) | 313 |
901
|
588
|
| Container C (Green) | 258 |
656
|
398
|
| Container D (Red) | 311 |
758
|
447
|
| Container E (Control) | 321 |
609
|
288
|
MATH:
A:955 ppm - 385 ppm = 570 ppm
B:901 ppm - 313 ppm = 588 ppm
C: 656 ppm - 258 ppm = 398 ppm
D: 758 ppm - 311 ppm = 447 ppm
E: 609 ppm- 321 ppm = 288 ppm
Why did the plants decomposition make the results inconclusive? Couldn't you have used the average CO2 emission of the control plants to standardize this?
ReplyDeleteAll of the plants, (including the control plant) were covered in airtight containers and therefore underwent decomposition. So, no it would have been impossible to use the average CO2 emission of the control plants to standardize this. The plant's decomposition made the results inconclusive, because instead of decreasing CO2 levels (as should have occurred as the plants consumed the CO2) the levels increased and thus it was impossible to determine which light color allowed the plant to consume the most CO2. It would have been possible however, to determine which light color made the plant decompose (thus give off CO2) fastest.
DeleteHow did you go about to make sure each light gave off the same amount of heat (knowing each light emits different watts)? What if the decomposition of the plant such a dramatic impact? Do you think your results would drastically change if they weren't placed in a different area?
ReplyDeleteSince each flashlight was of the same wattage and same battery it should mean that the each plant received the same amount of time exposed to the source of light therefore the same amount of heat exposure. The decomposition of plants had such a dramatic impact on our results because the data resulted being inconclusive if decomposition wouldn't have occurred we assume that the blue light or the white light would have been best for photosynthesis. Our results could have changed if the plants were changed into larger containers containing relatively a larger amount of CO2 or changing the total light exposure to maybe just a pitch black room with the one source light could make results measurements more exact without regarding environmental factor that are sometimes uncontrollable.
DeleteGabriel E. Hernandez (Student-Teacher with Amos)
ReplyDeleteThere are some groups that claimed to have found procedures that allowed them to extract chlorophyll from plants. I'm wondering if you could comment on how you might go about measuring carbon dioxide emission due to exposure of different light if you had a solution of chlorophyll extract.
If it were to just be the extraction of the chlorophyl then the procedures would be similar in that we would have a container of the extract and shine light on it and measure the CO2 response. But If we were to extract and isolate each pigment then we wouldn't be able to measure the CO2. When a light is shone on the extract, pigment molecules absorb energy.Since the pigments have been isolated from the thylakoid membranes of the chloroplasts, the energy cannot be used for photosynthesis and instead the energy is released as heat and light in a process called fluorescence. So we would end up measuring the red flourescence color produce or maybe the the tempearture change.
ReplyDelete