What do you mean by "lack of proper lighting"? I know we had a lamp above the experiment, but the experiments set up in our classroom had lamps directly overhead, and the lighting was probably also more concentrated/powerful. Or is it a different type of lighting that was used, or did the overhead lamp that we used light only some of the plants and not all? 

I feel that the plants of other groups were given a lot more room to grow, and we planted three seeds per canister, which is, like, 1/3 of the space that the other teams' seeds had. Could this also be a reason that our plants mostly grew "up" and not "wide" (i.e. they don't have true leaves and are very thin and feeble)?

I also thought that Fast Plants are very versatile and can grow in many different conditions. Does Mr. Roche or someone know the temperatures of the research lab? There are other experiments taking place in there too, some of which probably also involving plants, so I don't know if low temperatures really affected the growth of our plants that much. Did we perhaps do something wrong in our procedure that hindered the growth, or is it simply an accumulation of all these possible factors?

Emily - For lack of proper lighting, I meant that we only used a small circular lamp, whereas the other groups in Mr. Roche's room had fluorescent lights that stretched across many groups. In addition, the temperature was lower in the research lab, so that would make the growth slower. However, I think that you're right in that the main reason that our plants did not develop properly was the lack of space that they were given. Another problem may have been the wicks that we used; we reused wicks from a previous experiment, and it is possible that they were not sufficient in soaking the soil with water. 

Hours would be appropriate since you used half hour time lapse images. Looking forward to seeing the results!

Since this is a video of a video, it's a little hard to see clearly... is there any way to upload the actual video onto here? Or if that might be too inconvenient, does the actual time-lapse video appear clearly enough for us to know when the plants germinated or reached a certain height? (I mean, that's all that we need for our data.)

I don't think our time-lapse camera could see when each plant germinated through the soil, so we were planning on seeing when we could first see the plant--basically, when it first broke through the soil.

Selena - I think that's what Mrs. ArchMiller meant. As in, we will use whenever we can detect germination through the soil.

Right- I'm pretty sure that the plants grew to at least 3 cm before becoming lopsided or toppling over. That way, we can measure when germination can be detected through the soil, and when it reaches a certain height (to calculate approximate growth rate) around 3 cm, and anything that happens to the plants after that won't matter anymore.

As long as we have a clear view of the seed germination, I think it should be fine. We should try and record the data from the video first to see.

It looks like you'll be able to at least estimate when germination happened through the soil. I'm excited to hear about the results once you analyze the data! Good job everyone!

Sure, that should be fine. With the time-lapse camera, we'll be able to see when the plants reached certain heights (and then we can finally collect our data!).

So, just to confirm, we're doing averages for each test group, right? And measuring the dependent variable as the growth rate?

Ms. ArchMiller - 

One of the plants has fallen, and I am not sure why. When we planted, we sprinkled only a small amount of fine potting soil over the seeds. Is this something that we should be concerned about? Will it greatly affect the seed's growth? Thanks :)

Hi - this is the progress of the growth as of 11/3. If the time lapse camera doesn't work, or the data looks funny due to errors in our method, Mr. Roche said that we could redo the experiment. What do you guys think? We have around 20 more days, and it took about a week to perform this. 

Also, I'm a bit confused about our operational definition - would rate of sprouting/growth just be the average of the growth each day, or is there a more precise way to measure the rate?

Is it 20 more days for just the experiment part or for finishing the entire thing? If it's the first one, we should be able to do it, but if it's the second, I guess it depends on what else we have to do after this (observations, conclusions, and anything else). Also, I'm not really sure about our operational definition either. According to Mr. Roche, it would be hard to use the time-lapse to figure out exactly when the plants crossed a certain point, so I'd say we should probably decide once the experiment is over and we can look at the data from the camera.

I think it's 20 days to finish the entire thing. But the "entire thing" basically means to finish those simple observation and conclusion questions. I don't think it would take us that long to complete.

If we can't figure out exactly when the plants crossed a certain point, maybe we could just use the total height of the plant at the end.

Because we still aren't sure of how to operate the time lapse camera, redoing the experiment may not be the best idea. In addition, with the plant setup that we have, I don't think that there is an angle at which there'd be no distortion, especially for the plants furthest away. Therefore, I think that we should just go with the data that we have right now. I am afraid that if we do the experiment over again, we'd end up with the exact same problems (or maybe even more) than we had to begin with. If we can, however, find a good angle for the time lapse camera, a second experiment could be viable. 

Here's the overall set up of our experiment. The light source is located at the top, and the time lapse camera is to the left, angled down at the fast plants.

Sorry that it's sideways... don't know how to fix that. As you can see, our plants have actually grown quite a bit, some of them already at 5 cm (where we drew the last tick marks on the sticks)! I haven't seen them since they were planted, so I guess we can only use the time-lapse camera to determine their growth rate.

The other teams in our class/grade gave the plants more... sideways room when they planted them. Their plants have much wider leaves but are also quite short. Our plants are taller than most others that I've seen, yet the leaves are pretty tiny. Does this have to do with the amount of horizontal space that the seeds were given? 

The plants look good! It's more likely that you have smaller leaves and taller plants because the light quality and amount reaching the seedlings is better for photosynthesis (i.e., photosynthesis efficiency is higher) than the other groups. When plants are grown in shady conditions, for example, they tend to grow wider leaves that can capture more sunlight than other plants in more full sunlight conditions. That's just a thought. I'm hopeful that your time-lapse photography worked! 

Hey Mary (and others),

I don't think it's that worrisome that we haven't seem germination yet, since only one team in our class saw germination the day after planting. It's been 2 days after planting for us, which is still a reasonable time for the plants to not be sprouting. (Also, they might have germinated, but we might not be able to see it above the soil yet...?) If we still do not see germination/sprouting on Monday, that might be a problem, since these are "fast" plants...but maybe the relatively cold temperature of the research lab, compared to the environment that the other projects are in, has something to do with that.

Where is everyone else planting?

Hi Ms. Archmiller,

Most other groups are planting in our biology classroom. There's probably about one other group also planting in the research lab, and I'm not sure if they've seen results yet either. 

Any sprouts yet?

Yup!! Will attach photos/descriptions soon.

That's ok, this happens *all the time* in experimental biology. You just try to do your best to do things right, then if something goes wrong, you adapt. The most important thing to do is keep track of everything like you have here. Good work!

So... when we're collecting our data, do we just average the 11 seeds in the B group and the 12 seeds in everything else, or do we discount all of the seeds in pot 5 and only take the data for 11 seeds in each group?

I'm not an expert, but I think we should just take the average and leave n/a for the missing seed in the data table. Just because we have one piece of data missing, I don't think we should take away two other pieces of data, too.

Correct Emily, it would be a shame to miss out on the data from that whole canister just because of one missing data point. :-)

Technically, the analysis for a randomized complete block like you have is more challenging than just averaging over all canisters or "blocks" by treatment. However, unless you've taken some statistics, this may be beyond what Mr. Roche would want me to try and explain through PlantingScience. If you're curious, though, I can do my best to try and explain the more correct--and challenging--approach to analyzing your data. :-)

Half an hour should be just fine. Let's hope it worked! :-)

I don't think so, the soil is still probably plenty moist to last the weekend. But I am glad that you all are so considerate of all the things that might affect your experiment!

Almost forgot to mention, we are using a lamp clamped on an overhead bar as a source of light energy for the plants. 

Looks good!  I would certainly mark each seed treatment. Otherwise, this looks good. 

If we rotate them every day, we'll have to leave them to sit in the same position for two days on the weekend. Should we change the days between rotations, then, or just let it sit over the weekends? If we do make the rotation intervals longer, we should make sure there is enough time for us to rotate it at least three times. Ms. ArchMiller, do you know about how long the Wisconsin fast plants normally take to sprout?

(Also, Mary, I think you meant 120 degrees for each canister.)

I am not sure about Wisconsin fast plants. This is something that you might be able to find online or ask your teacher. I am happy to see you all thinking about these different issues! 

Sounds great. Good luck planting today!

Hmm, these links don't work for me...

I uploaded an experimental design diagram of our experiment, but I was a bit unsure about the exact measurements of our controls. 

Wait... what do you mean by that? Why would marking the locations of A make sure that none of them are rotated? Should we instead stagger the orientation so that the seeds facing a certain direction cycle (A, B, C, A, B, C, A, ...) so that we always know if we've rotated the canisters exactly once?

I agree with Emily--I think staggering the orientation in an orderly fashion would be the best. We'd always know how much they should be rotated.

Mr. Roche said that we would be planting in class on Thursday.

Just a change -- we are actually planning to plant on Monday, and prepare on Thursday, because on Monday we would be more likely to be in school around the time the seeds sprout. 

Hi Ms. Archmiller,

Thank you so much for your suggestions! Mr. Roche was thrilled that you shared the randomized complete block system.

a) We decided to use the randomized system using 12 film canisters, planting three seeds (one seed from each treatment) in clockwise order. We can change the orientation of the film canister to make the treatment randomized. We can also line the 12 canisters in a circle, and then rotate it every couple of days. (We will attach a drawing with a representation of this system.)

b) Hi Ms. Archmiller, how will we make sure that there is the same volume/mass of soil in each pot? Does that mean that we should use a mass scale to ensure that each pot gets the same amount of soil?

Also, do you think that packing the soil would be a good idea? After all, since un-packed soil would come in all different densities, that might affect the growth/germination of the plant. If we pack the soil, how would we pack it (with what)? 

I've never planted stuff before, so to everyone- how deep do you think we should plant the seeds beneath the soil? Would 1 cm or 1 inch be enough/too much?

The experimental design sounds great! 

I would put the pot on a scale, tare it (which resets it back to zero) and then add some amount of soil to a set weight. You might want to fill the first one, record the weight and then fill the rest to the same weight. Then, to try to make the densities similar, if they have the same volume and you lightly pack (with fingers) them to the same height in the container, then the average density will be consistent throughout the soil. This is because density is mass/volume. If you set the mass using the scale to be the same and try to keep the volume the same in each container by lightly packing them to the same height in the container, then the density should be equal too!

I would ask Mr. Roche if the seeds come with planting guidelines. Seed depth is usually specific to the seed types, and so I imagine that the seeds come with some advice for planting. You could also try to find some planting guidelines for Wisconsin Fast Seeds on the internet. 

I guess to make sure all of the seeds are planted at the same depth, we'll have to pack the soil into the pot(s), level it off so it's all the same height, sow the seeds, and then cover them with another layer of soil, and level that off too with something flat.

If we do put all of our plants in one pot, it has to be not only wide enough for all the plants to fit but also deep enough for there to be space for their roots. Unless we drill holes in the bottom of it to let the roots grow through and submerge it in water, which would also solve our watering problem. It's just a thought; I don't know whether it would work. What are your thoughts?

1. We will be using Wisconsin fast plant seeds, water, sand, a vortex machine, a time-lapse camera (?), something in which to grow the seeds (those black plastic containers, maybe, or the foam ones?), test tubes, soil, a ruler? (to measure the depth of the soil), and a timer (to time the number of seconds in the vortex machine).

2. Actions include germination, rate of growth, photosynthesis, wilting, respiration, and pH changes. The actions we will most likely be observing are the ones that would be affected by the vortex machine. Mr. Roche mentioned that there's a process called "sanding" sometimes done to seeds to help them germinate faster; we will most likely measure when the seeds germinate. Are there any other nuanced plant actions that might be affected by the vortex machine? 

I think we should stick with just the sand treatment or, maybe like Mrs. ArchMiller mentioned, just vibrating the seeds together because of the real life applications. Also, if we use the vortex machine for water, the seeds would more so just spin around really quickly so it does not go with our purpose of mimicking vibrations. It would probably be more of a separate experiment because it wouldn't test vibrations really.

I think that's a neat idea and worth looking into. I would get a timer or clock that you could put in the video too, starting after you plant the seeds so you can record the time when you first see the seedlings pop through the soil for each replicate. 

Hi Ms. Archmiller, I believe that we will be measuring the seeds' response by seeing how many days they take to germinate and grow to be above the soil. In order to do this, we would also have to make sure that the seeds are all planted at the same depth below the soil. 

Yes, making sure the seeds are all planted under the same conditions (like same depth below the soil) is very important! It will also be important to make sure the seeds in the soil grow in the same conditions (amount of light, temperature, moisture, etc). 

Hi Ms. Archmiller, 

Seeds are definitely subject to vibrations during earthquakes, but they are probably also vibrated during more common circumstances, like when a heavy animal slightly shakes the ground, or maybe even when wind gets into the soil and rattles the seed back and forth underground (not sure about that, though...). Since soil often contains sand particles, vortexing the seeds with sand may best simulate the way seeds are vibrated in the ground.

I'm not really sure when seeds would naturally be vibrated in water, but since Wisconsin Fast Plants are closely related to turnips, cabbages, and other common plants that are grown on farms, if we determined that vortexing the seeds with water would cause the plants to grow faster, it might be a natural way to grow crops more quickly without genetic modification.

Another way plants may get vibrated is when they're traveling to the farms to get planted (in trucks, etc). I think because of the more real-life situations where plants may get vibrated in "dry" conditions, I think that sand would be a better medium for vortexing the seeds than water. If you have enough seeds, you may also consider doing a water treatment and a sand treatment?  

Like we discussed in the research lab with Mr. Roche, I think vortexing the seeds with sand would probably make the seeds more... porous (is that the word?), and therefore when we water those seeds, more water would get into the seed, and as a result, the plant might grow faster. However, my only concern is that it will be hard to separate the seeds from the sand afterward. I remember Mr. Roche saying that the sand was lightly colored (almost white), so maybe that will make separation easier?

I agree, I think we can observe something along the lines of how fast the plant grows, which would be useful because we can see that in the early stage of germination. 

In response to your concern about separating the seeds from the sand, I think Mr. Roche mentioned that another teacher had a very precise sifter that could possibly be small enough to distinguish between the sand and the seeds. If that doesn't work, we could also use an instrument to make it easier to pick up the seeds, like tweezers. 

Using a sieve or sifter that would let sand through but not seeds would help, and then you can use tweezers to get any seeds that might fall have gone through the sieve. 

Mr. Roche did say that the sand was very white and the seeds are black, so I don't think that it would be very difficult to separate the seeds from the sand if the mixture is spread thinly over a flat surface. 

I think that the vortex machine looks like it would really shake things up! Maybe the time that the seeds are vibrated would also affect them? It is important to decide how long you will apply the vibrating treatment to the seeds.

I uploaded a video of the vortex machine in action. It is vibrating against a test tube, causing the water inside to spin.

Ms. ArchMiller,

Your career is so fascinating, especially the hands-on work you did as an environmental consultant. It really amazes me how you can conduct research in something so intriguing.

Right now, I don't really know what I will do in my future, though I definitely know that it will be somewhere in the STEM field.

Your passion will motivate me to find something that I like and pursue it in my life!