|Explore||We know that plants need soil, water, and light to grow from our experiences outside of school. In class we discovered that plants photosynthesize and preform cellular respiration. Where do plants get their mass from?|
|Research Question||Do different plants photosynthesize at different rates?|
|Predictions||We think that plants do photosynthesize at different rates because of their size. The bigger the plant the more light it can absorb, then is photosynthesizes at a faster rate than smaller plants.|
|Experimental Design||We put 3 grams of three different kinds of plants (Submerged, terrestrial, and floating) in Phenol Red and put them under a light for 24 hours to see which would photosynthesize at the highest rate.|
|Conclusion||We found that the Elodea (the submerged plant) performed photosynthesis at the highest rate. The Phenol Red with the spinach (the terrestrial plant) stayed the same and surprisingly, the the Phenol Red with the Duckweed (the floating plant) turned yellow. We believe the reason for this is because...|
As this research project is now in the final stages of wrapping-up, we wish to thank everyone who participated in this inquiry; the students, mentors, teachers and others behind the scenes. We appreciate all of your efforts and contributions to this online learning community.
Scientific exploration is a process of discovery that can be fun! There are many unanswered questions about plants just waiting for new scientists to consider, investigate, and share.
After the end of the session, we will be updating the platform and archiving groups and projects, after which time new updates/posts will not be able to be added to projects or groups. Please come back and visit the PlantingScience Project Gallery anytime to view this project in the future. You can search the Gallery by keyword, team name, topic, or school name.
Good bye for now.
The PlantingScience team
It’s great to see that teams from your school are wrapping up and posting conclusions. Enjoy the final stages of your project, and feel free to post any final comments or questions you have for your mentors.
Dear Jeremy, Zachary, and Mercedeez
You are very welcome. In the 10 yr or so I’ve been doing this, you folks were probably the most involved and responsive group I’ve worked with. The pleasure was mine. I wish you well in your future studies.
Cheers, Dr. Dan
Dear Dr. Dan,
I would like to thank you for all the questions you have answered. We have learned so much about photosynthesis. Without you we wouldn't have been able to have the success that we did.
Hey, so I guess this is goodbye. Thank you for helping us with this thing it was a lot of fun. You’re my favorite scientist (even more than Bill Nye and the teacher from The Magic School Bus)
Dear Team 4:
Wow! Great experiment! I think it was a good conceptual design. Thanks for the data posts, Mercedeez. Though it is a little hard for me to see the solutions in the photos, except for your negative control (no plant in the solution), it looks to me like the elodea solution eventually turned almost purple. That’s way up on the pH scale (~8) about as far as phenol red can detect, so the results are pretty clear for that sample. One always has to be a little cautious because digital cameras can shift the color and so can a computer screen, and judging color is a little subjective anyway. But I think your results are pretty solid. Nice work!
And I agree with the logic of your explanation of the results. Not only are the duckweeds floating so only the undersides of the leaves are contacting the water, I think their stomata are entirely on the upper surface (typical of floating plants) so most of their photosynthetic CO2 would come directly from the air. Furthermore, they have roots in the water that would be doing respiration that would tend to lower the pH. Since your spinach leaves appear to be mostly intact (almost no cut edges for the solution to get into the leaves), unlike the leaf disks, their photosynthesis would be restricted. People often have the mistaken idea that water moves through stomata, but usually it is only water vapor that can do that (that’s transpiration). If there is air in the spaces inside the leaf water trying to get in through a stoma will form a strong meniscus from surface tension across the pore that will prevent the water from penetrating further. Water has amazing properties, and surface tension is one of them.
Zachary, you mentioned that the control solution got darker. Did it change color or just get darker? Over how long of a time was the cup left sitting out (I assume) uncovered? I’m going to guess it did not change color, because if it changed color most likely it would shift from orange to yellow (absorbed more CO2 to form carbonic acid) over time and seem to get lighter. On the other hand, since ionic solutes (stuff dissolved in water) like phenol red cannot evaporate, but the water can, a solution left exposed to air will lose water and become more concentrated over time. That’s my guess.
Jeremy, the answer to your question about Mr. Beast’s project actually is not simple. I’m going to answer yes, it will benefit the world by helping to make up for a small amount of the environmental damage that is reducing the number of trees worldwide. We have an organization here in the Cincinnati area that has a goal to plant 10 million trees in our area. My city (Hamilton) is an Arbor Society "Tree City" (your city may be too), and we (I’m a City Tree Board volunteer) are committed to planting 100s of trees every year to maintain and increase our urban canopy. I don’t know how many so far, but it is in the thousands.
To put things into perspective though, consider just the damage caused by the accidentally introduced, invasive emerald ash borer beetle. Since you live in Ohio, you may have heard of this monstrous little animal from Asia. Ash trees in Asia, which evolved for millions of years with EAB in their environment, have pretty good resistance to its damage, and only sick, stressed, and old ash trees are killed by it there. But in N. America the ash trees have little to no resistance to EAB. It is estimated that in the last 20 yr since it arrived, 100 million ash trees have been killed so far by EAB in Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, and Ontario, Canada. Other species of trees may take advantage of the newly available space and replace them eventually, that is if the invasive Amur honeysuckle shrub (also from Asia) doesn’t prevent new trees from growing. Then there’s all the damage from human-caused fires and deliberate deforestation for development to accommodate our rapidly expanding human population.
I do not want to discourage you though, there are millions of people who recognize that this is happening and are actively working hard to reverse the deforestation trend. I’ve planted 21 trees in my own yard to join the one lone hemlock that was here when I moved in 25 yr ago. Two of my fruit trees died from disease, but I replaced them with two native hazelnut shrubs that will get almost as big as the trees and feed me (and the squirrels) lots of delicious nuts. So, send a few bucks to Mr. Beast (I checked; it’s not a scam), whose organization has planted over 6 million trees so far. And get your student organizations to plant some trees at the school. Every tree planted will help reverse the trend - and make seeds that will help spread the trees further - and help limit global warming.
Cheers, Dr. Dan
Dear Dr. Dan,
The experiment was a success! We put 3 grams of spinach leafs, duckweed, and elodea into phenol red to see which one photosynthesizes the best. We found that the elodea photosynthesizes the best because the phenol red was a darker pink than the other cups of phenol red. We believe this was because elodea is meant to be under water unlike the other plants. The duckweed is naturally in the water but it floats on top of the water.
Hola, Dr. Dan, how are you?
So after our experiment we found that the control (Which was just phenol red in a cup) became slightly darker. Do you know why this happened? We can't figure it out.
A YouTuber that goes by the name of Mr. Beast started an organization that has a goal to plant 20 million trees($1=1 tree). They are doing it with money that is being donated to them. Will this have an effect in the world? If so, how much affect will this have?
What does photosynthesis make glucose from*? What molecules? Since all chemical syntheses require energy, what is the energy source? (I know you know that one! It’s in the name of the process.)
*Actually, photosynthesis makes two kinds of three-carbon sugars from which glucose can be assembled if the plant cell needs glucose. This is probably beyond what Ms. Dobson planned on telling you, but those two molecule types (glyceraldehyde and dihydroxyacetone) can be used to build lots of molecules that plant cells need, and they can be fed directly into the middle part of glycolysis, which conserves energy by skipping the energy-requiring first part.
So then, when a plant or animal cell releases energy from food molecules by respiration, where did that energy actually originate?
Best wishes, Dr. Dan
Dear Team 4:
I was discussing definitions with Ms. Dobson and one of the other mentors yesterday, and I ran across the following blunder in the dictionary on my computer (my trusty printed collegiate dictionary did not make this mistake). Can you spot what’s wrong with this definition?
respire | rəˈspī(ə)r |
breathe: [no object] he lay back, respiring deeply | [with object] : a country where fresh air seems impossible to respire.
• (of a plant) carry out respiration, especially at night when photosynthesis has ceased.
There is also a slight misconception conveyed in the definition of "respiration" in the same dictionary (also not present in my printed collegiate dictionary. This is why I think everyone should have a good-quality, printed dictionary of her/his own. Mine is a Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate 11th Edit.) The Internet has a lot of good information, but it also has a lot of bad information too. Printed materials from reputable publishers, like Merriam-Webster and your textbook publishers, have human editors with reputations to protect, so they try to prevent crap from appearing in their books.
respiration | ˌrespəˈrāSH(ə)n |
the action of breathing: opiates affect respiration.
• Biology a process in living organisms involving the production of energy, typically with the intake of oxygen and the release of carbon dioxide from the oxidation of complex organic substances.
I’ll explain this one. Notice it said "the production of energy". Well, respiration "produces" energy only in the same sense that burning gasoline does. The energy is not created; it is released from molecules of foo/fuel. The energy is trapped in the bonds (mostly) between carbon atoms in the food molecules, and respiration transfers that energy to cellular machinery where it is used to do work. When that energy is pulled out it causes the food molecules to fall apart, and the carbon (plus oxygen) gets released as CO2.
People sometimes make this same mistake by saying that photosynthesis creates energy. Nope. What does photosynthesis actually (literally) do?
Cheers, Dr. Dan
Dear Team 4:
Something else to think about —
1. The research question you posed on your project page was:
Do different plants photosynthesize at different rates?
2. And you hypothesized:
We think that plants do photosynthesize at different rates because of their size. The bigger the plant the more light it can absorb, then is photosynthesizes at a faster rate than smaller plants.
3. And then you stated in the "Experimental Design" section that you would do the leaf disk procedure with different kinds of leaves.
If you can handle a little criticism, I’d like to point out that the disk procedure will not compare plants of different sizes, but it is great for comparing leaves of different kinds (species) of plants. It is also good for comparing leaves of the same species but different ages. (Leaves at the tips of branches are younger than those located near the branch base.) That’s OK; I think you are able to revise #1 to "different species" and revise #2 … well, because of some other factor you can probably think of related to differences between species. Plant species do differ a lot.
But consider your original Question #1. What does "rate of photosynthesis" mean? Do you mean amount of food made per minute per plant? Logically, if two individual plants are the same species but different sizes, and everything else (like light, temperature, water and mineral availability) being equal, the bigger plant would would produce more food. Probably a better way to think of rate in this context would be amount of food per minute per gram of leaf biomass. That way you can easily compare different species to each other or plants of the same species but different ages (or sizes). The disk assay is perfect for that.
You can also test things like temperature or light color. Do you think photosynthesis rate would be different at different temperatures? What would that disk experiment look like?
Please try to find time to try to answer these questions. Dr. Dan
Dear Dr. Dan
Thank you for clearing up on what happened in our side experiment I had tryed to look up on the internet on how this was happening but didnt get vary far on looking for an explanation that made any sense.
Dear Team 4:
I was confused at first (misled by the photo-posts of breath-bubbled water), but I checked the color scale for phenol red (PR), and I see that a solution at pH < ~6.5 a solution with PR will be yellow, so the negative controls (distilled water without plants) would predictably be that color, as would PR water surrounding a plant held in darkness. Even distilled water will become slightly acidic fairly quickly just sitting around because of exposure to the CO2 naturally in air, and the cellular respiration of elodea held in darkness would make the pH even lower because cellular respiration releases CO2, but that would not change the color perceptibly. By contrast, according to the chart I obtained, the water around the photosynthesizing elodea was pH 7.5-8, which is pretty amazing given that the plant is simply removing the source of carbonic acid (that is CO2), not adding a base.
So, regarding your "side experiment", the PR water in the bottom of the test tube where the plant did not reach did not have to be bubbled with your breath to be yellow. It would have been that way anyway from just sitting around. Everything else I told you - about diffusion and all - would have still applied.
Cheers, Dr. Dan
Dear Team 4:
There is one correction I have to make to your description on the data page. In plants, respiration does not make photosynthesis possible. It is the other way around. Respiration requires food molecules (from photosynthesis) and aerobic respiration always releases CO2, which would lower pH and keep the solution yellow (like your plant in darkness) if it were not that photosynthesis removes CO2. It’s worth mentioning that because plants need food 24/7 just like animals do, when the light is available they produce more food by photosynthesis than they need for respiration (the solution turned pinkish-red because of this). This is because they have to make extra food molecules to get by when it is dark.
Your "side experiment" is interesting (I compliment you for thinking of it). It reveals a phenomenon not directly associated with photosynthesis, but which relates to very many natural processes. It is called "diffusion". I wasn’t there to see what happened, but I do not think that the solution in the bottom of the tube was "turned light yellow" by the plant. I think it just was already yellow from your breath and the plant did not have enough time to have an effect on the solution at the bottom of the tube.
The solution in the tube was "stagnant" (i.e., not stirred), so mixing of the solution has to rely on molecule diffusion, which is a process that relies on molecules wiggling around at a sub-microscopic level. It is really slow, but if you had kept the light on and waited a really long time, I’d predict the solution would all become pinkish-red like it was around the plant’s leaves.
If you want to see this effect in a different way, just get two cups of water, put a gram of sugar in the bottom of each. The sugar crystals will start to dissolve immediately in both cups. As you probably know, when sugar dissolves in water it disappears from our view because we cannot see individual sugar molecules spread out in the water. On the other hand, if the water right next to a sugar crystal has a lot of sugar dissolved in it, that will slow down the rate that the crystal will dissolve. If you do not stir the water (let it stagnate) the only process that will move the dissolved sugar molecules away from each crystal will be diffusion, which is slow. If you gently stir the water at the top of the other cup the sugar crystals should dissolve much faster than in the stagnant cup.
Alternatively, with an eyedropper or pipet you could carefully put a little blob of food coloring at the bottom of each cup of water, gently stir the water at the top of one and let the other remain stagnant, then compare how long it takes for the color to mix evenly in each cup. You’ll probably have to get some sleep before the stagnant one finishes mixing by diffusion - but it eventually will.
Cheers, Dr. Dan
Well, Team 4, is that cool or what? Clear evidence of environmental change caused by a living organism!
Are you ready for a little more light-weight chemistry? this happens to to be a crucial factor in the effects humans are having on the global environment. Here goes: CO2+ H20 >> H2CO3.>> 2H++ CO3-. (This is related to the info I gave you about baking soda, but we’ll come back to that.) H2CO3is called "carbonic acid". An acid is a chemical that, when dissolved in water, makes it become more acidic (lowers pH).
The H+is the "acid actor". H+ ions added to a solution makes it acidic. So - roll with me on this - when you breathe into water you add CO2, so according to the above formula, carbonic acid will be formed that will dissociate (split apart) and make the water acidic. Following so far? You saw how that affected the phenol red indicator when you breathed into the solution. Did your breath make the solution more acidic or more basic?
On the other hand, since the chemical reaction I shared with you above is reversible, if CO2is removed form the water the reaction will reverse. Therefore, if a plant, like elodea, does photosynthesis (fixes CO2in the water into into food), what effect would that have on the CO2amount in the in the water? And if CO2in the water makes it more acidic, how would removing CO2affect the solution’s pH? Your experiment gave you the evidence for the answer. BTW, the oxygen level does not have any effect on the pH.
So, if humans do things that cause more CO2to accumulate in the atmosphere, some of that extra CO2eventually gets into seawater and the carbonic acid that forms from that will lower its pH. Check out how that affects the shells and exoskeletons of sea animals such as crabs, oysters, and especially corals.
Sincerely, Dr. Dan
Dear Dr. Dan
We breathed into the cup with just water.
Claim - Evidence - Reason: (fixed)
We thought that the cup with baking soda water would float first. We found that the leaves in the cup that we breathed into floated to the surface first. In 25 minutes, nine leaves in the breath cup floated to the top, while only six floated in the baking soda water and none in the control. When you exhale you release CO2, which plants use to perform photosynthesis. This is why the leaves in the breath cup floated first.
Dear Group 4:
Yes, but what I was trying to explain with my little chemistry lesson was why baking soda dissolved in water is also a source of CO2. You have empirically demonstrated that your breath bubbled through the water enhanced photosynthesis beyond the plain water control, probably because of its CO2 content, which is higher than in the ambient air. Furthermore, your results suggest that your breath by itself is a better source of CO2 than baking soda by itself. You can see the reason I asked if the breath solution also had baking soda; that would be two sources of CO2 together. Logically, that would be better than either source by itself. The fact that your breath by itself was better than baking soda by itself as a source of CO2 was a surprise to me. Like you, I thought the baking soda would be better …. but that is why we do empirical experiments: to discover the real truth about natural things.
Let me ask, why do you think I mentioned fish and algae in my message to Jeremy? Hint: CO2 and O2 are gases. Fish need O2, but "breathe" in water. Algae need CO2 but do photosynthesis underwater. Does that tell you anything about gases and liquids? What about your leaf disks? Weren’t they effectively like algae underwater? And then there is the buoyancy thing. Some of the disks clearly increased in buoyancy. Why?
BTW, I was wondering what do you think might have happened if you had waited longer before counting the disks? Do you think if you’d waited longer the control disks might also have changed buoyancy and floated?
Cheers, Dr. Dan
You probably know that Ziggy Stardust was actually an imaginary character portrayed by the great late musical performer David Bowie. I can understand why your mom was a fan. Our dog’s name was short for Zig-Zag, which really did describe the way he walked. I think he had experienced a hip injury before he found and adopted us. He was a little terrier-poodle mix, I think.
Regarding the "same but different" idea, I like to explain it like this: "We are all unique, just like everyone else."
How I became interested in plants is sort of a long story, but it starts with failure. When we were young (when I was a professional musician, and when I did not have a gig for a couple of weeks) my wife showed up one day with a big brown paper bag full of vegetable seeds she’d bought at the discount surplus store. She said she wanted a garden. I thought, how hard can it be? (Jeremy should get a laugh out of that.) So, I borrowed a rototiller from her uncle and tilled up a big wild area in the back of my mother-in-law’s place and planted row after row of lettuce, spinach, broccoli, beans, corn, carrots, etc. Mind you, it was mid-June in Southern California, so it turned out to be a hot, difficult 2 d of work … and nothing but the beans and corn came up, and the little bean plants were eaten to the ground within two days. While the corn grew well enough, there were almost no kernels on the cobs in the end. I was young, but not so dumb to realize what was wrong: I was ignorant about how to grow plants.
So, I decided to study up and try again. I learned that broccoli, lettuce, and spinach seeds won’t even germinate in hot soil, and wouldn’t grow well if they had. I learned that old seeds are often dead (check the date on the seed package); seeds are baby plants, and can’t wait forever. I learned that corn is wind pollinated, so you have to plant it in a block rather than a long straight row crossways to the wind, as I had. And I learned that some of the worst pests that live in wild fields in arid areas like S. Calif. only come out at night - and they love to eat young bean plants and corn silk. I discovered that plants are sophisticated, interesting organisms, and it takes a lot of knowledge to be successful at something like gardening, landscaping, and especially agriculture. But what really hooked me was the fact that plants are weird and wonderful, existentially important to our survival, and just plain cool.
Best wishes, Dr. Dan
Jeremy, like my answer to Zachary, I’m going to use questions to help answer your questions. Try to answer them from your own knowledge first. I want to clarify something about your procedure first. Mercedeez, did you bubble breath into plain water or baking soda water?
There are two parts to the answer to your question, Jeremy: 1) What property of an object determines whether it floats or sinks in water, and 2) what process could cause that property to change. I think you probably already suspect that #2 has something to do with photosynthesis because light was involved. #1, though, doesn’t involve photosynthesis. That is about buoyancy, is it not? When you first punched out the disks, did they sink or float? You said that all the disks sank at first (they were more dense than water, therefore not buoyant). Did you have to do something to make that happen before putting the disks in your experiment solutions? What did you do? Mercedeez wrote something about this. Why would that procedure change the density of the disks?
Later, after being illuminated for a while, the disks started to float. What must have happened to their density (buoyancy) for that to occur? What was going on that would make them more buoyant? Now consider the general formula for photosynthesis (CO2 + H2O >> HCOH + O2) and consider where the stuff on the left comes from and where the stuff on the right ends up.
Let’s pause for a minute to consider some fundamentals. Almost all eukaryotes (organisms with a nucleus in their cells) need O2 to do food respiration. Plants and algae are photosynthetic eukaryotes, so they need the stuff on the left to make the carbohydrate building units (HCOH on the right) to make their food. (They make all our food too). Where do terrestrial (land) plants get their CO2 and H2O? Where do they get their O2 for respiration? Got the answer? But you put the leaf disks under water. No shortage of water, but CO2 and O2? Hmmm…
Fish generally live underwater. Fish are animals; all animals are eukaryotes. Animals get their food by eating other organisms, but, since they are submerged, where do fish get their O2 to do food respiration? Likewise, where do aquatic plants and algae that are submerged get their CO2 to make food? Think a bit; by deduction what has to be the answer?
You all understand that there is more CO2 in the air you exhale than in the air you inhale and vice versa for O2. That’s why we breathe. Mercedeez didn’t specifically say it this way, but I think you may have used soda straws to bubble your exhaled breath into the test water. Why do that? That’s a lot like the way PepsiCo makes carbonated water.
Then there is the baking soda (sodium bicarbonate; Na = sodium, HCO3 = bicarbonate) water. I know you guys aren’t chemists, but see if you can understand the following idea: In water baking soda (NaHCO3) splits to form Na and HCO3. Then the HCO3 becomes OH and CO2 dissolved in the water. In other words, baking soda will release carbon dioxide (CO2) into the water, and this is especially true if something in the water keeps removing the CO2 when it appears.
I realize this is a lot of information at once, but you can ask me questions about any of it.
Cheers, Dr. Dan
Mercedeez, Maria, Zack and Jeremy
Great Storyboard. One comment about CER - I think you just dove right into the Evidence and skipped the Claim. The Claim answers the research question. Can your team leader go back and add that in?
Still waiting for your personal observations regarding the success of your investigation and relevant questions. Don't forget that Dan is valuable resource for helping you understand what is going on in class. What were you wondering as you completed the leaf disk investigation? Those "wonderings" are the questions we are looking for.
Dear Dr. Dan,
On the subject of your dog being named Ziggy; my cat wasn't named Ziggy for walking funny, though I find it adorable they named the dog Ziggy for that reason. My Ziggy's full name is actually Ziggy Stardust, someone whom my mother is very fond of. I could agree with your daughter as well on that note. Everything is different in its own unique way but all the same as well. It's just fascinating. I have to ask, how did you get into plants? What sparked your interest for it?
Here's our results from our latest project….
How does the CO2 level affect the rate of photosynthesis?
Summary of Procedures:
We used a hole puncher to cut pieces from spinach leaves. Then, we used a syringe with water inside to remove the oxygen from within the leaves. We performed this three times with baking soda water, water we blew in, and distilled water. Finally, we placed the leaves in the cups which contained the different types of water and placed them under light, then timed how long it took for them to float.
Claim - Evidence - Reason:
We found that the leaves in the cup that we breathed into floated to the surface first. In 25 minutes, nine leaves in the breath cup floated to the top, while only six floated in the baking soda water and none in the control. When you exhale you release CO2, which plants use to perform photosynthesis. This is why the leaves in the breath cup floated first.
Other Research Question:
Would the different type of plants affect the rate of photosynthesis?
You are on the right track. You tried to grow a Venus flytrap. Did it trap any insects in its traps while you had it? Were they dissolved? What color was it mainly? Green? The red surface on the trap leaves works like a flower petal to help attract insects. What do plants use their green parts for? Where do most plants get their energy?
As for "impurities" in tap water, you drink it don’t you? Think about where most plants get their water. Wet soil, right? That’s dirty water. What do plants need to make their food (they are autotrophs: "self-feeding")? Forgive me for answering you by asking a bunch of questions, but if you put the puzzle together yourself you’ll really get the picture.
BTW, if they used an acid strong enough to dissolve an insect it might harm the plant. They use chemical catalysts called enzymes to break down the soft parts, Here’s a little article that explains it pretty well: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-does-the-venus-flytra/
I think the marigold thing is a bit of an exaggeration. As far as I know it has only been confirmed that their roots repel tiny parasitic worms called nematodes. Tomato plants are susceptible to nematode damage, so interplanting marigolds may help with that.
My farmhand days are long gone. But you can connect your question about climate change to photosynthesis pretty easily. First, it has been solidly confirmed that the Earth is experiencing an unusually rapid warming trend, especially at the poles. The question is whether humans are the cause. Well, it has been known since the 18th Century that deforestation results in environmental warming (David Hume, 1752), and it has been known since the 19th Century that carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" that works like insulation to slow heat transfer through the atmosphere (Tyndall, 1861; Arrhenius, 1896). Deforestation has been rampant for the last 200 yr. How would that affect the amount of photosynthesis and the carbon dioxide level in the air? During that same period the burning of coal, petroleum, and natural gas has increased tremendously. What is that stuff made of? Where did it come from? Answer: plants and algae that got buried millions of years ago. Where did those plants and algae get their biomass? Same way as plants do today. Put two and two together. BTW, there is a slick way to show what proportion of carbon dioxide in the air is from biological organisms versus volcanoes, and we can test that back millions of years. Since the CO2 from organisms is rising in the atmosphere at the same time that forests are being destroyed, where could that be coming from?
Cheers, Dr. Dan
Hey, Dr. Gladish I know that my investigation was successful because all of leaf discs sank at first when put them in the different types of water. Then after sitting under the light for about 20 minutes they floated back up. Could you please explain how this process works.
As a reminder to my students, each team member is to do 2 things today on this forum: 1. Describe how you know your investigation was successful and 2. Ask questions you have now. These questions should be RELEVANT to photosynthesis.
Hi Daniel I have a question on why planting marigolds around a garden helps keep most bugs away.
P.P.S.: One more thing, Zachary, don't beat yourself up about giving your Dionaea muscipula "the wrong water". It is not intuitive, so it is a very common problem with trying to cultivate that species of plant.
But is a good lesson for us. To succeed in the growing of plants from special environments requires understanding those environments. Why do you think Dionaea or Sarracenia (pitcher plants) catch and kill little animals? Did you notice what your Dionaea plant did with the gnats and flies it caught? They cannot eat them (they aren't actually carnivores) because they don't have mouths or stomachs. They are green plants, so they do photosynthesis like other plants. Those species live in places where the soil and water are crappy. Give it some thought and tell me what you think is going on with those weird plants, maybe even come up with a hypothesis as to why using tapwater doesn't work for those species - or why they need to kill animals.
Cheers, Dr. Dan
P.S.: Zachary, I guess I should have mentioned that compact fluorescent bulbs work well too, and those you can put in a desk-lamp that has a boom extension or gooseneck feature that will easily allow you to change its height.
BTW, how are you and your teammates doing with Ms. Dobson's question about where a tree's mass comes from? In professional science articles we sometimes refer to fresh vs. dry biomass as ways to measure growth.
Best wishes, Dr. Dan
Sure, most plants will grow under artificial light, just don't use old-fashioned incandescent lamps because they are too hot. Special growth lamps can be purchased, but they are expensive and not necessary. Regular and cool-white fluorescent lamps work well (I use standard 4 ft workshop lamps for the botany lab growth stands), and broad spectrum LED lamps probably will work too, though I haven't actually tried them. The lamps should be as close to the plants as possible without touching them, and you should set it up so you can move the light as the plants grow.
I was in the Suburban Three, the Rising Generation, the Backporch Majority, and the Bright Angel Band in the 1960s and 70s. The folks I play with now record under the name Albrecht Music Venture.
Cheers, Dr. Dan