Prema Chablani

December 14, 2010

The Effect of temperature and the condition of lathyrus odorous seeds,

dormant or germinating for 48 hours on cellular respiration of lathyrus
odorous seeds seen in the form of CO2 Emissions (ppm) as measured by
Pasco’s CO2 sensor

Research question:
When dormant and germinating for 48 hours, lathyrus odorous seeds kept at 20co
room temperature, as well as germinating seeds at 10co are measured in terms of
CO2 emmisions (pmm) by Pasco’s CO2 sensor, what are the differences in the rate of
cellular respiration between the different conditions and temperatures of seeds?
Key Variables:

Independent Variables:

IV1: Temperature- The temperature for the germinating seeds in the

fridge will be 10co, the temperature for the germinating seeds in the dark cabinet
will be 20co and the dormant seeds will also be at 20co. It should also be kept
controlled.

IV2: Condition of Seed Variation- One sample of seeds will be dormant.

The other two will have been germinating for 48 hours, one in the fridge and
the other in a dark space. All the areas will be dark for the seeds prefer
germinating in the dark.

Dependent Variables:

DV1: Rate of cellular respiration/CO2 Emissions: The CO2 emissions are

dependent on the temperature and condition of seeds (dormant or germinating).
They CO2 emissions help us see the rate of cellular respiration. They are measured
by Pasco’s CO2 sensor and the units are parts per million (ppm). The uncertainty is
+50ppm.

Controlled Variables: To keep extraneous variables other than the

independent variable from influencing the dependant variable, we control for the
following variables:

CV1: Temperature: When the sample of seeds is taken from the pack,
they need to be maintained in the same temperature. By using ice to keep it
cool, or warm water to keep the room temperature, the temperature that the
seeds were experiencing beforehand during germination can be maintained.
This can be measured through the use of a thermometer. The uncertainty for
this would be +0.5co.
 CV2: Stability of Data collection: The equipment works best when is in a
vertical position. In order to do this, we would use a clamp and a ring stand to
hold the data collection equipment in a vertical position.

CV3: Calibration: The CO2 sensor must be calibrated when taking data.
This must be done every time so that we get the data in the same way.

CV4: Lathyrus Odorous: The seeds must be maintained to the Lathyrus

Odorous only, so that the data we get is comparable.

Hypothesis:

H0: There is no relationship between the temperature and the conditions of the
seeds whether dormant or germinated with the rate of cellular respiration/CO2
emissions.

HA: The relationship between temperature and the rate of cellular respiration/ CO2
emissions is expected to be a direct positive relationship. As the temperature
increases the rate of cellular respiration increases as well. The sample of seeds that
have been in the fridge will be at 10co and the other two samples will be at 20oc.
The importance of this is that every 10co increase in temperature doubles the
respiration rate. Therefore, when comparing the three samples of Latyrus Odorous
seeds, the increase in temperature will increase the rate of cellular respiration. This
is because when the temperature increases, there is more kinetic energy, therefore
more collisions and finally this leads to more reactions. This is why the rate of
cellular respiration is expected to increase as the temperature increases. There will
also be a direct relationship between the condition of the seeds and the seed
variation. There will be more CO2 emissions coming from the germinating seeds as
they are exposed to oxygen and aerobic respiration requires oxygen. However, the
dormant seeds are not exposed to oxygen and the rate of respiration will be slower,
therefore fewer CO2 emissions. Finally, it is also expected that the seeds
germinating at 20oc will do the most respiration, because as previously stated every
10oc increase in temperature will double the rate of reaction.
Data Collection and Processing:

Qualitative Data:

In this lab, my partners and I noticed an increase in the level of CO2 every trial in
which we performed.
Keeping a constant temperature was difficult, because as the ice melted the
temperature would fluctuate. This may have caused an error in our work. Another
thing we noticed was that the sensor would pick up a dropping CO2 level before it
started to go up.

Quantitative Data:

Table 1: Raw Data for the effect of seed condition and germination
temperature on CO 2 production in 10 minutes by Lathyrus odoratus seeds
measured by Pasco CO 2 sensor:
 seed condition Trial initial CO2 final CO2
(D=dormant; concentration concentration
G=germinating) (ppm±50) (ppm±50) after 10
/temperature (°C±0.5) minutes

D/20.0 1 541.0 574.0

D/20.0 2 485.0 496.0

D/20.0 3 567.0 538.0

D/20.0 4 407.0 511.0

D/20.0 5 301.0 298.0

D/20.0 mean - -

D/20.0 s.d. - -

D/20.0 95% CI - -

G/20.0 1 723.0 871.0

G/20.0 2 677.0 933.0

G/20.0 3 436.0 661.0

G/20.0 4 403.0 682.0

G/20.0 5 359.0 537.0

G/20.0 mean - -

G/20.0 s.d. - -

G/20.0 95% CI - -

G/10.0 1 449.0 654.0

G/10.0 2 639.0 754.0

G/10.0 3 402.0 564.0

G/10.0 4 408.0 645.0

G/10.0 5 252.0 403.0

G/10.0 mean - -

G/10.0 s.d. - -

G/10.0 95% CI - -
Table 2: Processed Data for the effect of seed condition and
germination temperature on CO 2 production in 10 minutes by
Lathyrus odoratus seeds measured by Pasco CO 2 sensor:
 seed condition trial initial CO2 Final CO2 ∆ CO2
(D=dormant; concentration concentration concentration
G=germinating) (ppm±50) (ppm±50) after 10 (ppm)
/temperature (°C±0.5) minutes

D/20.0 1 541.0 574.0 33.0

D/20.0 2 485.0 496.0 11.0

D/20.0 3 567.0 538.0 -29.0

D/20.0 4 407.0 511.0 104.0

D/20.0 5 301.0 298.0 -3.0

D/20.0 mean - - 23.2

D/20.0 s.d. - - 50.5

D/20.0 95% - - +44.3

CI

G/20.0 1 723.0 871.0 148.0

G/20.0 2 677.0 933.0 256.0

G/20.0 3 436.0 661.0 225.0

G/20.0 4 403.0 682.0 279.0

G/20.0 5 359.0 537.0 178.0

G/20.0 mean - - 217.2

G/20.0 s.d. - - 54.1

G/20.0 95% - - +47.4

CI

G/10.0 1 449.0 654.0 205.0

G/10.0 2 639.0 754.0 115.0

G/10.0 3 402.0 564.0 162.0

G/10.0 4 408.0 645.0 237.0

G/10.0 5 252.0 403.0 151.0

G/10.0 mean - - 174.0

G/10.0 s.d. - - 47.7

G/10.0 95% - - +41.8

CI
We used standard deviation as a measure of variability in the data. The greater the
standard deviation the less reliable the data is. Referring to table 2, the standard
deviation varies between each temperature and seed condition. The largest
standard deviation and the smallest standard deviation are the two data values
G/20.0 (largest) and G/20.0(smallest). The smallest being 47.7 and the largest being
54.1 make the data less reliable. The large standard deviation shows that the data
is less reliable and the smaller standard deviation is still quite large, also showing
the data the less reliable.

Table 3: Rate of Decarboxylation for the effect of seed condition and

germination temperature on CO 2 production in 10 minutes by

seed condition (D=dormant; Rate of Decarboxylation

G=germinating) /temperature
(°C±0.5) (ppm/minute)

G/10.0 174.0/10= 17.40

G/20.0 217.2/10= 21.72

D/20.0 23.2/10= 23.20

Lathyrus odoratus seeds measured by Pasco CO 2 sensor:

We used a 95% CI as a measure of statistical significance. The error bars on figure 2

and 3 are a representation of this significance. The error bars are overlapping in
figure 1, so I conclude that the means are not significantly different. However, in
figure 2 the error bars do not overlap therefore the means are significantly
different. The highest 95% CI is +47.4 at G/20. The lowest 95% CI is +41.8 at G/10.

Table 4: T-test values for the effect of seed condition and germination
temperature on CO 2 production in 10 minutes by Lathyrus odoratus seeds
measured by Pasco CO 2 sensor:

Ho: D/20 + G/20 T-test= P= 0.000192043

Ho: G/20 = G/10 T-test= P= 0.108851853

We performed t-tests, a statistical test, on the data in order to see whether we can
accept or reject our null hypothesis. The smaller the P value, means the higher the
confidence is. We can accept our alternative hypothesis for the T-test between D/20
and G/20 because the p value is less than 0.05. However, for the T-test between
G/20 and G/10 the p value is higher than 0.05 therefore I will accept my null
hypothesis.
Conclusion and Evaluation:

Conclusion:

HA: The relationship between temperature and the rate of cellular respiration/ CO2
emissions is expected to be a direct positive relationship. As the temperature
increases the rate of cellular respiration increases as well. The sample of seeds that
have been in the fridge will be at 10co and the other two samples will be at 20oc.
The importance of this is that every 10co increase in temperature doubles the
respiration rate. Therefore, when comparing the three samples of Latyrus Odorous
seeds, the increase in temperature will increase the rate of cellular respiration. This
is because when the temperature increases, there is more kinetic energy, therefore
more collisions and finally this leads to more reactions. This is why the rate of
cellular respiration is expected to increase as the temperature increases. There will
also be a direct relationship between the condition of the seeds and the seed
variation. There will be more CO2 emissions coming from the germinating seeds as
they are exposed to oxygen and aerobic respiration requires oxygen. However, the
dormant seeds are not exposed to oxygen and the rate of respiration will be slower,
therefore fewer CO2 emissions. Finally, it is also expected that the seeds
germinating at 20oc will do the most respiration, because as previously stated every
10oc increase in temperature will double the rate of reaction.

Some of our results for the effect of temperature on carbon dioxide production by
germinating pea seeds supported our null hypothesis (t-test: reject HA:P=0.01).
However, table 1 and figure 1 supported our alternate hypothesis. For example,
Table 2 shows an increase in final and initial concentration in G/20 and G/10 every
time. Also, Figure 1 shows that as the temperature increases so does the rate of
decarboxylation. My hypothesis states that “that every 10co increase in
temperature doubles the respiration rate.” The reason we see this, and it is true, is
because the temperature increase leads to, more kinetic energy, therefore more
collisions and finally this leads to more reactions. However, the T-test, standard
deviations and error bars lead us to accept our null hypothesis over our alternate
hypothesis. The P value in the t-test over 0.05 therefore, we have to accept our null
hypothesis when looking at the t-test. Also, our standard deviations in table 2 are
very large, G/20= 54.1 and G/10= 47.4, this means that our data is less reliable.
Also, our error bars for G/10 and G/20 overlap on figure 1 making our means not
significantly different. Therefore we cannot accept our alternate hypothesis with
95% confidence. The similar study explained after table 5, also supports the fact
that our data is unreliable, because none of the rates from the literature values and
our values are even close.

The tables and graphs for the effect of seed condition on carbon dioxide production
by germinating pea seeds supported our alternate hypothesis (t-test: reject Ho:
P=0.00019). For example table 2, supports our data for a direct, positive
relationship between condition of seeds and the rate of decarboxylation. As we can
see, in table 2, in the majority of trials, there is an increase in CO2 concentration
from final to initial in both G/20 and D/20. Also, figure two supports our hypothesis
because we predicted that germinating seeds would have a faster rate than
dormant seeds. This is clearly shown in figure 2 and table 3, the rate of
decarboxylation table, where the rate of D/20 is 2.32 and the rate of G/20 is 21.72.
This is because there will be more CO2 emissions coming from the germinating
seeds as they are exposed to oxygen and water and aerobic respiration requires
oxygen and water. However, the dormant seeds are not exposed to oxygen and the
rate of respiration will be slower, therefore fewer CO2 emissions. The t-test is for this
data is below 0.05 at 0.00019 therefore it shows the data as more reliable and
supports our decision to accept our HA. The standard deviation is very large for
D/20, like it is for G/20. For D/20 it is 50.5 therefore the data is less reliable. Also,
when the rates are compared to literature values below table 5, the values are
different suggest that our data is less reliable. However, the error bars in figure two
do not overlap suggesting that we can accept our alternate hypothesis with 95%
confidence.

Table 5: Literary values for the effect of seed condition and germination
temperature on CO 2 production in 10 minutes by Lathyrus odoratus seeds
measured by Pasco CO 2 sensor

Condition of Seeds/ Temperature Rate of Oxidation O2/ML

Germinating Peas/ 10°C 0.20

Germinating Peas 20°C 0.70

Dormant Peas 20°C -0.01

According to the table above,

(http://www.biologyjunction.com/lab_5_ap_sample_3.htm , n.d.) our data is not
reliable, because we don’t have similar values. Their value for rate for Germinating
peas at 10 degrees is 0.20 O2/ML whereas, ours is 23.3 ppm/minute. Our rate of
respiration is smiliar to their rate of oxidation because they both represent the rate
of cellular respiration. However, ours is much faster. Another example of ours being
faster is, our rate for germinating peas at 20 degrees is 21.71 ppm/minute and
theirs is 0.70 O2/ML. Finally, their dormant peas have a negative rate, and our rate
is 2.32 ppm/minute. Therefore our data is unreliable. It doesn’t match theirs at all.

Evaluation:

Table 6: Error Analysis for the effect of seed condition and germination
temperature on CO 2 production in 10 minutes by Lathyrus odoratus seeds
measured by Pasco CO 2 sensor
Error Error Type Design or Performance?

Sample Size Human , Systematic Design

Temperature Human, Random Performance

Timing Human, Random Performance

Stability of Data Equipment, Random Performance

collection

Seeds Equipment, Random Design

Sample size: We had a sample size of 5. For each, D/20, G/20 and G/10 we had 5
trials. I think that increasing the sample size would increase the reliability of the
data. The standard deviations shown in table 2 were quite large showing us that our
data wasn’t as reliable as we would want it. Perhaps by increasing the sample size
to 5 instead of 5 we would have much more accurate data.

Temperature: It is difficult to get to exactly 10 degrees or exactly 20 degrees

when performing this lab. As the ice melts into the water, the water temperature
keeps dropping. This could have caused anomalies in the data; I am speaking for
both the 20 degrees and 10 degrees data for both seed conditions. We should have
one partner monitoring the thermometer at all times and adding hot water if
necessary to maintain an accurate temperature.

Timings: We were supposed to make sure to measure the CO2 concentration for 10
minutes of time. However, if you are not concentrating on the computer screen or a
timer, 10 minutes will pass by very quickly and you will find yourself at 15 minutes.
A person must be monitoring the time to make sure we do not go over.

Stability of data collection: The clamp and the ring stand were not effective in
holding the equipment straight. Our group tried two clamps and ring stands and
both didn’t work for us. This could have tampered with the data collection process.
Therefore I suggest that a group of three is necessary. One person to monitor the
temperature, another to monitor the time and finally one person to monitor the
equipment, making sure it stands upright either by holding it there or constantly
adjusting it. This is what my group ending up doing because we had the opportunity
to have three people in a group.
 Seeds: Not all the seeds are the same. Some are bigger and some are smaller. In
order to perform this lab accurately all seeds would have to be identical. However,
this cannot be helped and is something that has to be overlooked.

Bibliography:

The College Board, Educational Testing Service (1997).Biology Laboratory Manual

for Students. New York, New York: The College Board
Lab 5 ap sample 3. (n.d.). Retrived from
http://www.biologyjunction.com/lab_5_ap_sample_3.htm