DESIGN CRITERIA -- REQUIRED ASPECTS

COMPLETE (2) Identifies a focused problem or research question and identifies relevant variables. COMPLETE (2) Designs a method for the effective control of variables COMPLETE (2) Develops a method that allows for the collection of sufficient data

PARTIAL (1) Research question is incomplete or only some relevant variables identified.

PARTIAL (1) Designs a method that makes some attempt to control the variables.

PARTIAL (1) Develops a method that allows for the collection of insufficient relevant data.

NONE (0) Does not identify a problem / research question and does not identify any relevant variables.

NONE (0) Designs a method that does not control variables.

NONE (0) Develops a method that does not allow for the collection of any relevant data.

DATA COLLECTION/PROCESSING CRITERIA REQUIRED ASPECTS

COMPLETE (2) Records appropriate raw data (qualitative and/or quantitative), including units and uncertainties where relevant PARTIAL (1) Records appropriate raw data quantitative and qualitative, but with some mistakes or omissions. COMPLETE (2) Processes the quantitative raw data correctly. COMPLETE (2) Presents processed data appropriately and where relevant includes errors and uncertainties. PARTIAL (1) Presents processed data appropriately, but with some mistakes and/or omissions.

PARTIAL (1) Processes quantitative raw data, but with mistakes or omissions.

NONE (0) Does not record any appropriate quantitative raw data or data is incomprehensible.

NONE (0) No processing of quantitative raw data or major mistakes are made in processing.

NONE (0) Presents processed data inappropriately or incomprehensibly.

CONCLUSION/EVALUATION CRITERIA REQUIRED ASPECTS

COMPLETE (2) States a valid conclusion, with justification, based on a reasonable interpretation of the data. PARTIAL (1) States a conclusion based on a reasonable interpretation of the data COMPLETE (2) Evaluates procedure(s) and results including limitations and weaknesses. PARTIAL (1) Identifies some weaknesses and limitations but the evaluation is weak or missing NONE (0) Identifies irrelevant weaknesses and limitations. COMPLETE (2) Suggests realistic improvements in respect to identified weaknesses and limitations. PARTIAL (1) Suggests only superficial improvements

NONE (0) States no conclusion, or the conclusion is based on an unreasonable interpretation of the data.

NONE (0) Suggests unrealistic improvements.

Transpiration Lab Design Section Question: How would the presence of wind affect the rate of transpiration in a Fatsia japonica plant? Two potometers with samples from the same plant would be set up to conduct the controlled and experimental trial. The experimental trial would differ from the controlled with the addition of wind. Rates of transpiration would be calculated based on the calibrated pipettes reading of how the water levels on the potometer have changed. In this experiment, the dependent variable would be the rate of transpiration measured by a self-assembled potometer. The independent variable would be the presence of wind generated by a fan to stimulate wind in a natural environment. Hypothesis: If wind were present then the rate of transpiration would increase because without wind, the area surrounding the leaf would become increasingly humid and thus the plant would decrease in transpiration rate. However, with the fan, the humidity surrounding the wind would be blown away. The plant would then start transpiring faster due to the dry surrounding environment (Allott 119). Null Hypothesis: Wind will have no effect on the rate of transpiration of a Fatsia japonica plant. Variables table Type of Variable Variable Name How to Control and Record Dependent Rate of Transpiration Measured by reading the mark on the potometer. The same potometer is to be used by all experiments. Record numerical value in the sample data table below. Independent Presence of wind An electric fan to ensure stability in wind power would produce wind for the experimental trial. Controlled Transpiration Experiment using the same sample. Pluck surface area of plant all leaves off after experiment and mass it to determine surface area per unit of mass. Type of Plant Use leaves from the same Fatsia japonica plant Potometer Assemble the potometer in the same manner (see and follow diagram) Wind power Use an electric fan set it at a fixed rate to ensure consistency in wind power. Use an anemometer to record and ensure that

Temperature Humidity Light intensity Time

the wind speed is kept consistent. Do the experiment in the same area of the room. Allow time before experiment to let all materials adjust to room temperature. Do the experiment on the same day in the same area of the room. Find a space within the room where light is evenly distributed. Do the experiment all at once Use a stopwatch to keep track of experiment and transpiration time for each trial.

Materials 2 Fatsia japonica leaves similar in size 1 electric fan 1 anemometer 2 clamps 2 Bendable plastic tubes 2 1mL Calibrated pipettes Appropriate amount of distilled water 2 stop watches 2 retort stands 1 pair of scissors 1 scalpel 1 electric balance 1 calculator 4 sheets of gridded graph paper

Procedure 1. Collect all materials 2. Set up the Potometer (see diagram) 3. Take a sample of the Fatsia japonica plant and use the scalpel to make a diagonal cut on the bottom of the stem. Ensure that the sample chosen has a sturdy and thick enough stem to stand upright in the potometer. 4. Place the plant sample in the potometer and ensure that it is air tight with no air bubbles. 5. Record initial water level indicated by the calibrated pipette 6. Start stop watch 7. Record calibrated pipette reading every 3 minutes for 40 minutes in sample data table below. 8. For the experimental trials repeat steps 2-4. 9. Set up the fan next to the experimental trial and turn the fan on. Ensure that the fan does not interfere with the controlled trial.

10. Use the anemometer to measure the average wind speed and record in sample data table below. 11. Record the calibrated pipettes reading every 3 minutes for 40 minutes 12. After 40 minutes, remove both leaves from the potometer and determine its surface area with gridded graph paper.

Diagram 1: Potometer The potometer should be set up like this with a clamp on a retort stand and rubber tubing connecting the plant to the calibrated pipette.

Data Collecting and Processing Table 1: Experiment Raw Data Table Time (minutes) 3 seconds Calibrated Pipette Measuring (mL) 0.05mL Controlled Group Experimental Group 0 0.001 0.062 3 0.012 0.093 6 0.023 0.137 9 0.038 0.179 12 0.061 0.233 15 0.079 0.287 18 0.101 0.353 21 0.127 0.411 24 0.144 0.508 27 0.171 0.571 30 0.194 0.611 33 0.221 0.660 36 0.248 0.675 39 0.275 0.685 The uncertainties in this lab have been accounted for in the raw data table above and these include time and pipette readings. During this experiment, two trials were conducted at the same time and a stopwatch was used to record time. It was hard to take a recording exactly at the desired time. As for taking measurements from the calibrated pipette, the uncertainty was reduced as much as possible by using a 1mL pipette with 0.1mL etchings. However, the water level was to be read from the bottom of the meniscus at eye level to avoid parallax error. It was hard to estimate where the bottom of the meniscus is and there is also it is uncertain how far away from eye level each measurement was taken. Therefore, the uncertainty in the pipette reading accounts for parallax error and estimation of the water level. Table 2: Quantitative data of conditions Surface area of controlled leaf Surface area of experimental leaf Wind speed 495 5 cm2 451 5 cm2 5.4 0.2m/s

Data Processing

Table 3: Weighted Rate of Transpiration Time (minutes) 3 seconds Calibrated Pipette Measuring (mL) 0.05mL Controlled Group Experimental Group 0 0.001 0.062 3 0.012 0.094 6 0.023 0.138 9 0.038 0.180 12 0.061 0.235 15 0.079 0.289 18 0.101 0.356 21 0.127 0.414 24 0.144 0.512 27 0.171 0.576 30 0.194 0.616 33 0.221 0.665 36 0.248 0.680 39 0.275 0.690 To calculate the weighted rate of transpiration, it must be taken into consideration that the two leaves are different in size. In this experiment, the control experiment leaf was bigger than the experimental experiment leaf. This indicates that during the experiment, the bigger leaf with the bigger stem transpired more than the smaller leaf. The ratio of the big leaf to the small leaf is 495:491. This means the bigger leaf is about 1.008 times bigger than the smaller leaf. Thus to ensure the difference in stem size affecting transpiration rates has been accounted, the raw data of the experimental group (smaller leaf) will be multiplied by a factor of 1.008. The controlled group data stays the same. Experimental data point x 1.008 = weighted data e.g. 0.093 x 1.008 = 0.094

Table 4: Zeroed and Weighted Raw Data

Time (minutes) 3 seconds 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39

Calibrated Pipette Measuring (mL) 0.05mL Controlled Group Experimental Group 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.032 0.022 0.076 0.037 0.118 0.060 0.173 0.078 0.227 0.100 0.294 0.126 0.352 0.143 0.450 0.170 0.514 0.193 0.554 0.220 0.603 0.247 0.618 0.274 0.628

The weighted data has been zeroed to eliminate the original difference. As shown in Table 1, the initial reading for the controlled trial was 0.0010.05mL and 0.0620.05mL for the experiment trial. 0.001mL was subtracted from each data point in the control experiment and 0.062mL from the experimental trial so the two data sets could be put next to each other and compared. Table 5:Observed Change of Controlled and Experimental Trial Time (minutes) 3 seconds Change (mL) 0.05mL Controlled Group Experimental Group 0 0.000 0.000 3 0.011 0.032 6 0.011 0.044 9 0.015 0.042 12 0.023 0.055 15 0.018 0.054 18 0.022 0.067 21 0.026 0.058 24 0.017 0.058 27 0.027 0.044 30 0.023 0.030 33 0.027 0.019 36 0.027 0.015 39 0.027 0.010

The change is measured by the following formula: Measured pipette reading measured pipette reading the previous reading

e.g. In the controlled group the pipette reading at 15 minutes was 0.079 0.05mL. At 12 minutes, it was 0.0610.05mL. Thus, 0.079-0.061 = 0.0150.05mL

Data Analysis Error bars in both figure 1 and 2 account for the uncertainty of absolute accuracy when measuring the data. In figure one, the error bars for the x value is 0.05minutes because 3 seconds is 0 .05 of a minute. Thought it is expressed, it is not visible on this figure since the scale goes up to 40, 0.05minute is too small to be seen. The y-axis error bar is set to be 0.05mL to account for the 0.05mL uncertainty when measuring the data. These error bars also indicate whether the range within which the data could fall between. As seen in figure 1, when x is equal to 3,6,9, the error bars of the experimental and control trial overlap, thus indicating that the data could have been expressed otherwise. Apart from the few points that overlap in the beginning, the uncertainties do not affect the overall trend of the data. In figure 2, error bars for the y-axis is also not visible due to the large data range but set to be 0.05 minutes. The x-axis error bars are 0.05mL like figure 1 to take into account the possibility of parallax error. In figure 2, the error bars do not affect possible outcomes from interpretation because the trend will remain similar enough to make the same conclusion. This graph is to show the contrast in change in the two different trials.

A two-tailed t-test was conducted to confirm that the data collected was not due to chance. In this test, a p value (probability) of under 0.05 indicates that the data has some trend in it and does not occur at random. The t-test was done by http://studentsttest.com. The p value calculated from the raw data entered was 0.00036. This value is significantly smaller than 0.05 thus confirming that the variance in the data did not occur randomly. In figure one, the red data points represent transpiration in the controlled trial and the blue for the experimental trial. They both start at zero and show a positive slope. However, in the experimental trial, the slope being 0.01820mL/min, is significantly steeper than the experimental trial at 0.007182mL/min. The difference between the slope of the experimental trial and the controlled trial is 0.011018mL/min. A steeper slope in the experimental trial shows that the plant transpired faster since speed is distance over time. Within the same amount of time, the experimental conditions made the leaf transpire more than the control conditions. As seen in Table 5, at 15 minutes, the experimental trial had transpired 0.2270.05mL of water while the control trial only transpired 0.0780.05mL. In the end, at 39 minutes, the experimental trial transpired a total of 0.6780.05mL of water while the control transpired 0.2740.05mL. In the blue data points representing the rate of respiration of the experimental trial, it is seen towards the end that the line plateaus. Table 4 indicates that at 33, 36, and 39 minutes, the pipette measuring is 0.06030.05mL, 0.06180.05mL, and 0.06280.05mL respectively. Though it is still transpiring, the experiment trial is transpiring at a much slower rate towards the end of the trial supported by Figure 2, and Table 5. Table 5 shows a downward curve, which indicates that after 18 minutes, the leaf has reached its maximum transpiration rate. Just looking at Figure 2 may be misleading as it makes it seem as if the leaf is transpiring slower than when it started. Figure 1 shows a plateau from 33 minutes and onward. This represents how the leaf has reached its maximum transpiring rate or has found a rate of transpiration that could balance the wind removing humidity from its surrounding leaves. A change of 0.0100.05mL from 36 to 39 minutes is significantly smaller than a change of 0.580.05mL from 21 to 24 minutes as seen in Table 5. Figure two shows the change between each time interval as indicated on the calibrated pipette. Once again, the red data plots represent the control trial and the blue represents the experiment trial. The control experiment shows a rather stable and slightly upward augmenting trend. This shows that during the beginning of the experiment to 12 minutes, the leafs transpiration rate was increasing. From 12 minutes to 39 minutes, the rate stated relatively the same except at 24 and 30 minutes when the rate was lower than the norm of around 0.027mL/min. This also shows in Table 5 when the change observed was 0.0170.05L/min and 0.0230.05mL at 24 and 30 minutes respectively. Conclusion and Evaluation

The objective of this lab was to examine how the existence of wind affects, if it does, the rate of transpiration in plants. The wind was powered at 5.4m/s and two experiments were set up: one with wind and one without. The data collected clearly shows that wind does impact the rate of transpiration. For example as seen in Figure 1 supported by Table 4, at 6 minutes, the controlled experiment only transpired 0.0220.05mL of water while the experimental trial with wind had already transpired 0.760.05mL. The control experiment took around 15 minutes, which is 9 minutes more than the experimental trial to transpire 0.0780.05mL of water. The difference is portrayed very vividly in Figure 1. Though both experiments start at 0.00mL, the experimental trial represented in blue obviously has a steeper slope than the control experiment. The experimental trials slope is 0.01820mL/minwhile fir the experimental trial it is 0.007182mL/min. The evidence from this lab supports the hypothesis that the presence of wind does indeed increase the rate of transpiration in plants. On a macro level, in addition to the explanation above, water is being transpired faster in the experimental trial compared to the controlled trial because the experimental plant transpired a total of 0.6280.05mL of water while the controlled plant transpired only 0.2740.05mL. On a micro level, the increase in transpiration rate could be explained by examining how a leaf responds to change. In still wind, the plant would transpire slower because the air surrounding the leaf would become increasingly humid by the plants transpiration. When wind is present, it would take away the humidity surrounding the plant. Thus, the plant would detect such a change and increase the rate of transpiration to accommodate this change. To regain humidity in the air, the plant would have to maximize its transpiration rate (Allott 119). The uncertainties in this experiment generally do not threaten the conclusion. There are two uncertainties in this experiment: 0.05mL due to parallax error or 3 seconds when recording measurements. These uncertainties generally do not impact general trend of the data. As seen in Figure 1, the error bars, indicating the range within which the data might have fallen, do not overlap with each other except at 3,6,9 minutes. However, this generally does not affect the conclusion because the overall trend still very clearly shows that the rate of transpiration is greater in the experimental trial when compared to the control trial. In Figure 2, the error bars also prove to be of little concern when it comes to accessing the general trend though it overlaps the two experiments at two points (at 30 and 33 minutes). Since this is the case, the hypothesis that wind will increase transpiration rate in a plant is still accepted. Problems in the experiment 1. Parallax error measurements were not always taken at eye level. Without being at eye level it is hard to determine where the bottom of the meniscus is. This would have caused an inaccuracy in the measurements.

2. Uncertainty in time the measurements were supposed to be recorded every 3 minutes but sometimes due to the time taken to travel between the two potometers, sometime would pass before measurements could be taken 3. Experiment was done only once insufficient amount of data. 4. One had a healing wound on the surface the wound may have caused some stomata cells to die thus causing an imbalance of surface area to stomata ratio. This could have been an impediment to measuring the rate of transpiration of a leaves actual potential. Possible solutions 1. For each measurement be sure to bend down at eye level with the measuring cylinder to minimize chances of parallax error 2. Put the two potometers relatively close to each other to minimize travel time between them. However, ensure that they are far enough so the wind from the experimental trials do not affect the control trials 3. Repeat the experiment at least 3 times 4. Pick leaves that look relatively similar in age and check for wounds.

Works Cited: Allott, Andrew, and David Mindorff. Biology: Course Companion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.