Name: Aly Badalamenti Date: 10/29/12 Transpiration Lab Research Question: How is the rate of transpiration affected by wind

acting as an abiotic factor? Hypothesis: With wind acting as an abiotic factor, the rate of transpiration will increase. This is because wind contributes to plant water loss by lessening the external water concentration, promoting a concentration gradient for water to exit through the leaves. DATA COLLECTION & PROCESSING - Aspect 1: Recording Raw Data & Aspect 2: Processing Raw Data Table 1: Day 1 Controlled* Time (Min)

Water Loss Measurement (mL) +/0.005 0 0 3 0.04 5 0.07 6 0.08 9 0.12 10 0.14 12 0.16 15 0.20 18 0.24 20 0.26 *This data was collected in two sets, one measured every three minutes indicated in purple, and one measured every five minutes indicated in pink. Measurements where the data overlapped are indicated in blue.

Table 2: Day 2 Manipulated* Time (Min)

Water Loss Measurement (mL) +/0.005 0 0 3 0.03 5 0.06 6 0.07 9 0.11 10 0.12 12 0.14 15** N/A *This data was collected in two sets, one measured every three minutes indicated in purple, and one measured every five minutes indicated in pink. Measurements where the data overlapped are indicated in blue. **It should be included that a random error occurred at 15 minutes. An air bubble leaked into the tubing and offset the rest of the measurements. Data up to that point should be considered accurate. Table 3: Day 3 Controlled* Time (Min)

Water Loss Measurement (mL) +/- 0.005 0 0 3 0.03 5 0.04 6 0.05 9 0.065 10 0.07 12 0.09 15 0.09 *This data was collected in two sets, one measured every three minutes indicated in purple, and one measured every five minutes indicated in pink. Measurements where the data overlapped are indicated in blue.

Table 4: Day 3 Manipulated* Time (Min)

Water Loss Measurement (mL) +/0.005 0 0 3 0.02 5 0.03 6 0.03 9 0.04 10 0.04 *This data was collected in two sets, one measured every three minutes indicated in purple, and one measured every five minutes indicated in pink. Measurements where the data overlapped are indicated in blue. Table 5: Leaf Surface Areas For Day 1 Controlled Leaf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total Surface Area Average Surface Area Per Leaf Range of Leaf Surface Areas

Area (mm2) +/- 0.005 1792.54 2755.60 261.24 780.23 2537.18 579.75 1556.45 1826.65 2353.52 1543.50 15986.66 1598.66 2494.36

Table 6: Leaf Surface Areas For Day 2 Manipulated Leaf 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Total Surface Area Average Surface Area Per Leaf Range of Leaf Surface Areas

Area (mm2) +/- 0.005 1800.93 1527.84 2090.00 1326.88 3591.30 2502.92 1738.14 189.58 53.08 229.30 541.27 586.57 311.19 751.43 2425.51 19665.94 1311.06 3538.22

Table 7: Leaf Surface Areas For Day 3 Controlled and Manipulated Leaf Area (mm2) +/- 0.005 1 254.93 2 228.04 3 935.83 4 1547.74 5 1024.98 6 1807.85 7 1230.06 8 650.15 9 165.41 10 181.15 11 54.07 12 185.76 13 684.65 14 498.11 15 527.67 16 2379.67 Total Surface Area 12356.07 Average Surface Area Per Leaf 772.25 Range of Leaf Surface Areas 2325.6 Sample Calculations Equation 1: Range of Leaf Surface Areas Per Test Take the highest leaf surface area value of the data set and subtract the lowest leaf surface area value of the data set. Ex. Leaf Surface Areas For Day 1 Controlled: 2755.60mm2 261.24mm2 = 2494.36 Equation 2: Average Surface Area Per Leaf Add together all of the leaf surface area values of the data set, and divide by the number of leaves in the data set. Ex. Leaf Surface Areas For Day 1 Controlled: 1792.54mm2+2755.60mm2+261.24mm2+780.23mm2+2537.18mm2 +579.75mm2+1556.45mm2+1826.65mm2+2353.52mm2+1543.50mm2 = 15986.66mm2/10 = 1598.67mm2

Equation 3: Standard Deviation of Leaf Surface Areas From the Average Compute the average surface area per leaf in the data, then subtract the average from each leaf surface area value to compute the deviation. Square each individual deviation, then add them together. Divide that number by one less than the sample size of the data set, and then take the square root. 1792.54mm2-1598.67mm2= (193.87)2 = 37585.5769 2 2 2 2755.60mm -1598.67mm = (1156.93) = 1338487.025 2 2 2 261.24mm -1598.67mm = (-1337.43) = 1788719.005 2 2 2 780.23mm -1598.67mm = (-818.44) = 669844.0336 2 2 2 2537.18mm -1598.67mm = (938.51) = 880801.0201 2 2 2 579.75mm -1598.67mm = (-1018.92) = 1038197.966 2 2 2 1556.45mm -1598.67mm = (-42.22) = 1782.5284 2 2 2 1826.65mm -1598.67mm = (227.98) = 51974.8804 2 2 2 2353.52mm -1598.67mm = (754.85) = 569798.5225 2 2 2 1543.50mm -1598.67mm = (-55.17) = 3043.7289 37585.5769+1338487.025+1788719.005+669844.0336+880801.0201 +1038197.966+1782.5284+51974.8804+569798.5225+3043.7289 = 6380234.287/9 = 708914.9208 = 841.9708551mm2 rounded to 841.97mm2 Aspect 3: Presenting Processed Data Graph 1

Water Loss Over 10 Minute Period For Each Test

0.16 0.14 0.12 Water Loss (mL) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0-10 Minute Trials Day 1 (Controlled) Day 2 (Manipulated) Day 3 (Controlled) Day 3 (Manipulated)

The line graph presents the data collected in the first ten minutes of each test conducted. The side-by-side comparison shows the differences in transpiration rates for each test.

Graph 2

Average Leaf Surface Area Per Test

3000 2500 Surface Area (mm squared)

2000

1500

1000

500

0 Day 1 Controlled Day 2 Manipulated Day 3 Controlled and Manipulated

The graph represents the average leaf surface area per test. The error bars show the standard deviation, demonstrating the range of the leaf surface areas per each test. CONCLUSION & EVALUATION Aspect 1: Concluding In conclusion, the hypothesis presented can neither be accepted nor rejected. When processed, the data collected is too large in variation. The processed data does suggest that the hypothesis should be rejected, as seen in Graph 1 when both manipulation trials had slower transpiration rates than the controlled trials. However, far too many errors occurred as well as variations in the experimental procedure for a conclusion to be considered justified.

Aspect 2: Evaluating Procedures & Aspect 3: Improving the Investigation This investigation can be improved significantly. Multiple systematic errors occurred throughout. For example, different plant samples were used each day of the investigation. This created large variations in the data collected, making it difficult to process. This variable should remain constant through the entire experiment to help ensure more accurate results. Also, different time trials were used each day due to the amount of time given to conduct the lab. Data was collected for twenty minutes on Day 1, fifteen minutes on Day 2, and fifteen and ten minutes on Day 3. This made the data even more difficult to compare and process. The time trials should remain constant, and be conducted in a single day with a single plant sample to ensure more accurate data collection. As previously noted a random error occurred at 15 minutes on Day 2 of the investigation when an air bubble leaked into the tubing and offset the rest of the measurements. Furthermore, another possible random error should be considered, in which it is possible that the fan simulating wind on the plant samples was turned on too high and damaged the plant samples. This could have contributed to the slower transpiration rates in the manipulation trials. For this reason, the fan used could be an equipment weakness. In the future, a different fan should be used when conducting the experiment on a lower speed setting.