ABSTRACT Soil with a salt concentration of 0.18% proved to be ideal for germination and growth of Brassica rapa.

Soil with salt concentrations ranging between 1.5% and 6% proved unable to support germination at all. Soil with salt concentrations ranging from 0.045% to 0.75% allowed germination and relatively constant rates of growth. INTRODUCTION Numerous studies have been done, over the years, regarding road salt application and its corresponding effects on surrounding vegetation. In many cases, the resulting effects were found to be decidedly negative. G. P. Lumis, G. Hofstra, and R. Hall studied one such case that, more specifically, involved the effect of salt spray on roadside plants. General injury patterns: 1. injury more severe on side facing the road, plants onesided due to branch dieback; 2. damage more pronounced on downwind side of highway; 3. plants further from road injured less; 4. branches covered by snow not injured; 5. injury to evergreens apparent in late winter, injury in deciduous plants not evident until spring; 6. branches above the spray-drift zone not injured or injured less; 7. damage increased with the volume and speed of traffic and the amount of salt applied to highway; 8. plants damaged over several years lack vigor and soon begin to die; 9. less winterhardy plants injured more severely; 10. salt spray penetrates only a short distance into dense plans; 11. plants in sheltered locations lack injury symptoms. (Lumis et al, 1975.)
1

F. E. Hutchinson and B. E. Olson conducted another such study. Since high concentrations of sodium ions have an adverse effect on soil physical properties by causing dispersion of colloidal particles, alkali soils lack aggregation and are poorly drained, structureless soils. It appears the sodium levels found at some sites in this study would suggest that road salt applications may be resulting in poorer drainage of the soils along the highways. Furthermore, the sodium and chloride levels present in these soils are rapidly approaching a point where they may be toxic to some of the desirable vegetative species growing in the area. (Hutchinson et al, 1975.) This particular experiment is, essentially, a variation of the aforementioned. It does not involve roadside vegetation, but rather Brassica rapa, or Wisconsin Fast Plants. It does not involve roadside salt spray, but rather NaCl, or table salt. Several different salt to soil concentrations will be prepared, 0% and 6% acting as boundaries, and the resulting mixtures will be used to attempt germination of the Wisconsin Fast Plants. The results of these trials will be compared and contrasted to each other and with the hypothesis that similar negative effects, such as the effects of roadside salt on surrounding vegetation, will become apparent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS For the orderly completion of this experiment, the following are required: 24 RCBr (Rapid Cycling Brassica rapa) seeds, 2 quads and the necessary planting and growth materials, a ruler, table salt (NaCl), and a waterproof marking pen. First of all, a little preparation is in order. Set up some sort of lighting system. Then fill the reservoirs with water and drop in blue algal-control squares. Snap on the lid. Next, saturate a water mat and lay it on the reservoir lid with the end of the mat extending in to the water. Be sure the mat is thoroughly wet. Second, prepare the experimental potting mix as follows: Add 15 ml of salt to 240 ml of potting mix (control mix) and mix thoroughly. This makes experimental potting mix with 6% salt concentration. Place this in a pile next to a small piece of paper that identifies its salt percentage. This is an important step because if the soil is prepared incorrectly, any results will be skewed at best and completely unreliable at worst. Then combine 60 ml of the 6% salt potting mix with 60 ml of control potting mix and mix thoroughly. This yields potting mix with a 3% salt concentration. Label it. From now on, whenever you create soil with a new percentage of salt, always label it. Next, combine 60 ml of the 3% salt mix with 60 ml of the

control mix and mix thoroughly. This will yield soil with a 1.5% salt concentration. Now combine 60 ml of the 1.5 % salt mix with 60 ml of the control mix and mix thoroughly. This will yield soil with a .75% salt concentration. Take 60 ml of the .75% mix and combine it with 60 ml of the control mix and mix thoroughly. This will produce soil with a .37% salt concentration. Next, take 60 ml of .37% soil and combine it with 60 ml of control soil and mix thoroughly. This makes soil of .18% salt concentration. Now take 60 ml of the .18% mix and combine it with 60 ml of the control soil and mix thoroughly. This creates soil with a .09% salt concentration. Take 60 ml of the .09% mix and combine it with 60 ml of the control mix and mix thoroughly. This produces soil with a .045% salt concentration. Third, plant the seeds. Drop one wick into each cell so that the tip extends halfway out of the hole in the bottom. Then moisten the soil concentrations slightly and fill each quad cell halfway with soil of a different salt concentration. Fill 8 of the cells with plain soil. These will be the controls. Label each cell with the corresponding salt concentration. Next, add 3 fertilizer pellets to each quad cell. Now fill each cell to the top with moistened soil. Make shallow depressions on top of each cell making sure not to press so hard as to compact the soil. Then drop 3 seeds into each depression. Next, sprinkle enough of the corresponding soil to cover the

seeds in each cell. Now water very gently with pipet until water drips from each wick. Be careful not to wash seeds out of the cells. Label each quad with date and students name. Use the waterproof marker to label the water mat as shown in the lab packet. Place quads on water mat. Position top of the quad 10 cm below the lights. Water from the top with pipets or a squirt bottle for the first 3 days. Remember to keep the reservoirs full. Also, remember to use only tap water throughout the entire duration of the experiment. During days 5 to 7, count the total number of healthy green seedlings in each of the quads. Record the number along with the treatment the plants received. If the seedlings started to grow but turned brown and wilted (or died), record this number. Remember to always put the quads back in relatively the position on the water mat as you found them. Around this time, thin out the plants. Thin to one plant per cell. The tallest one is usually the best one to keep. From day 10 to the finish of the experiment, measure the height of the plants and record the data. The next order of business is to pollinate the plants. These plants do not cross-pollinate, so pollinate using bee sticks. Do this by brushing the bee sticks over the flowers to pick up and distribute pollen. Run them over all

observable flowers repeatedly to ensure successful pollination. Pollen must be transferred back and forth among different plants. Be thorough. Around this time, start to observe the formation of any seedpods. Record the data. Although there was, initially, more to this experiment than just examining growth and germination, this is as far as we got. For a complete list of instructions to complete the experiment, as intended, refer to the Wisconsin Fast Plants lab packet. RESULTS
GERMINATION NUMBER OF PLANTS TO GERMINATE 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 C3 C4 C6 C7 C8 C1 C2 C5
0 0 0 12 12 12 10 7 6 13 12

11

10

11

11 9

1.50%

0.75%

0.37%

0.18%

0.09%

SALT CONCENTRATION

0.05%

6%

3%

GROWTH
350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0
3% 1. 50 % 0. 75 % 0. 37 % 0. 18 % 0. 09 % 0. 05 % C7 C 8 6% C 1 C 2 C 3 C4 C 5 C6

DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY DAY

5 7 12 14 17 21 28

HEIGHT, IN MILLIMETERS, OF TALLEST PLANT

SALT CONCENTRATION

As the germination chart indicates, of all the salt concentrations that did indeed germinate, the number of plants per each individual concentration remained relatively constant. The 0.037% salt concentration yielded the most germinating plants with 13 (I didnt even believe that there were 13 seeds in there!) The 6%, 3%, and 1.5% salt concentrations, conversely, yielded no germinating plants at all. The average number of germinating plants per individual salt concentration was 10 plants. There are two observable anomalies here, or, results that fall out of the range of the average. The C6 concentration yielded 7 germinating plants and the 0.75% concentration yielded 6 germinating plants. As the growth chart indicates, of all of the plants that initially germinated, the relative rate of growth remained constant (Observe the

pattern of the graph.) The concentrations that yielded plants of the greatest height were the C2, C5, and 0.18% salt concentrations. C2 yielded a plant that measured in at 299 mm. C5 yielded a plant that measured 290 mm. The 0.18% concentration yielded a plant that measured in at 312 mm (the tallest one.) The concentrations of salt that yielded the least amount of growth were, as their complete lack of germination would indicate, 6%, 3%, and 1.5%. DISCUSSION The data gathered on the effects of salt on the germination and growth of Wisconsin Fast Plants proved to be very interesting. First and far most, to dispel any misconception that may or may not exist, salt does have an effect on the germination and growth of the Wisconsin Fast Plant. As the germination chart indicates, it has so profound an effect, in fact, that the soil of 6%, 3%, and 1.5% salt concentration, yielded no germinating plants whatsoever. The average number of germinating plants per each individual salt concentration, however, turned out to be 10 plants. This is fascinating. It is obvious that soil the between 6% and 1.5% salt concentration does not support germination, while all of the other concentrations used in this experiment yielded relatively constant results. What this information states, then, is that although too much salt will not allow germination at all, if the

plants soil does allow it to germinate, the different individual percentages of salt do not have that great an effect on them. The two observable anomalies do, indeed, throw off the average of germinating plants, and could be accounted for as a result of their relative positioning in relation to other cells with different salt concentrations. This is, actually, a very important point that will be discussed after the data from the growth chart is processed. As the growth chart indicates, of all of the plants that actually germinated, their relative growth rates remained constant. This goes right along with an earlier observation that if the salt concentration is able to support germination, then the individual differences in salt concentration do not have that drastic an effect. The concentrations of salt that yielded the most plant growth were the C2, C5, and 0.18% concentrations. This, too, is also quite interesting. It makes complete sense that the two controls would yield the greatest amount of growth. But what about the 0.18% concentration? If having no salt in the soil would always yield the best results, why arent all of the controls listed as those exhibiting the greatest amount of growth? Maybe it has something to do with the positioning of the individual cells on the water mat. The 0.18% concentration actually yielded the most growth out of any of the different concentrations. Why did this occur? It would appear, then, that this is actually an ideal salt concentration

for planting and one should actually seek out soil of this concentration if germination and growth are the ultimate goals. Even though many of the results of this experiment proved to be relatively constant, there were some anomalies and, as discussed earlier, this might have something to do with the positioning of the individual cells on the water mat. This is to say, it might have something to do with the positioning of different salt concentrations in relation to one another. Here is a brief explanation of how the trays were set up: The soil concentrations were divided equally between two different trays. Each tray, in turn, consisted of two rows, each four cells long. Tray one, from front left, straight back consisted of C3, C2, 3%, and C1. From front right, straight back, the order goes C4, 0.75%, 1.5%, and 6%. Tray two, from front left, straight back, consisted of C7, C6, 0.18%, and C5. From front right, straight back, the order goes C8, 0.045% (due to computer malfunction, the data from 0.045% is listed as 0.05%.), 0.09%, and 0.37%. This is difficult to visualize, so create a crude sketch. Imagine the two trays sitting next to each other so that the cells that sit directly at the front of the first row are all controls: C3, C4, C7, and C8. (It should be noted that these are the first stops on the water mat; these cells have access to the purest water and as we go backward by row, the salt content in the water probably increases.)

10

The soil in these cells initially contained no salt and probably came into contact with the least amount of salt out of any of the cells involved in this experiment. Recall that C2 yielded one of the tallest plants in the experiment. This makes sense, because if youre operating under the assumption that salt has negative effects on germination and growth, the plants with access to the purest water should yield the most growth. This only occurred in C2, however. The other high points in growth occurred in cells C5 and 0.18%. C5 was located in the last row, directly behind 0.18%, which, if you recall, yielded the greatest growth in the experiment. It makes sense that there is a correlation between the facts that two cells that shared two of the high spots in growth were directly next to each other. Another interesting thing to note is that C5 was completely surrounded, on all sides, by salted cells. There must have been some runoff of salt that made its way into the water in that cell. Perhaps this is what accounts for the successful amount of growth that occurred here. What does this all mean, though? The data collected throughout the course of this experiment lends itself to the fact that a surplus of salt, more specifically, between 1.5% and 6%, is so unhealthy to this type of plant that germination will not even occur. The interesting thing is that the data

11

collected here show that, actually, 0.18% seems to be an ideal concentration of salt to use in soil if germination and growth are the goals. This causes a semi-invalidation of the hypothesis with which I began this experiment. The original hypothesis was that, much like road salt has a decidedly negative effect on roadside plants, so too would table salt have a decidedly negative effect on Wisconsin Fast Plants. The reason I say semiinvalidated is because a certain concentration of salt, specifically 0.18%, yielded the best results. This lends itself to a question regarding the composition of fertilizer. Is salt a component of commercial fertilizer and, if so, is it used in a 0.18% concentration? If not, the results of this experiment say that it should be. Another question also arises. What is the salt percentage of the mix that is used to salt roads in the winter? The results of this experiment would lead one to believe that it would probably be somewhere within that window of 1.5% to 6% salt; that window where germination didnt even occur. In order for there to be decidedly negative effects on roadside vegetation, the salt concentration would have to be great enough to actually do a little damage and, by and large, with the exception of the no germination, no growth window, germination and growth rates across the board were relatively constant. Another question also comes to mind: If the cells were watered with salt water, provided it wasnt over

12

salted, how would this affect the results? I believe that it would shift the data, as a whole, over in the direction of each cell ultimately containing a greater salt percentage and, therefore, the related results. It would, in essence, be like moving the origin of the chart. These questions deserve further looking in to. This experiment proved to be quite an interesting one. To improve the solidity of the results, perhaps it should be done on a smaller scale on a more individual basis. If the same person who prepared the soil actually plants and measures the germination and growth, there is less room for error. Also, in the future, it would be a good idea to carry this experiment out to the collecting of seeds. Perhaps the salt has more diverse effects down the line that were not readily observable due to the fact that the experiment was terminated before its completion. Setting up the same quads and setting them out by the street during the winter could revise this experiment to more accurately and specifically reflect the effects of roadside salt on roadside vegetation. This would more accurately express the effect of roadside salt application on surrounding vegetation because it would actually be sprayed upon the outside of the plants and taken into them, rather than just being taken into them. LITERATURE CITED

13

1. Hutchinson, F. E. and Olson, B.E. (1966?). The Relationship of Road Salt Applications to Sodium and Chloride Ion Levels in the Soil Bordering Major Highways. [Paper sponsored by Committee on Soil-Sodium Chloride Stabilization and presented at the 46th Annual Meeting.] 7 pages. 2. Lumis, G. P.; Hofstra, G.; and Hall, R. (1975). Salt Damage to Roadside Plants. Journal Of Arboriculture. [Journal] volume 1 (issue 1), pp. 14.

14

15