You are on page 1of 7

Mayer 1 Brianna Mayer Mrs.

Hartford AP Biology (2) 9 March 2012 Lab: Design a Lab to Measure the Rate of Transpiration Title: The affect of various treatments on the rate of transpiration for a plant. Question: Which various environmental treatments will increase and decrease the rate of transpiration the most? Hypothesis: Wind will increase the rate the most. If the potometer is exposed to wind, the rate of transpiration will increase because with more carbon dioxide going through the stomata, more water and oxygen will be released due to photosynthesis. Darkness will decrease the rate the most. If the potometer is covered, then the rate of transpiration will decrease because the plant will not receive enough light, which it needs to carry out transpiration. Materials Potometer Plant 0.1 mL pipette Plant cutting Ring stand Clamps Clear tubing Petroleum jelly Beaker Refridgerator Procedure 1. Set up the potometer. 2. Used a water bottle to fill the tubing. Added water until it came out of the other end of the tube. Made sure there were no bubbles.

Mayer 2 3. Quickly cut the plant stem and put into the tubing. IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO DO THIS VERY QUICKLY!!!! 4. Let the potometer equilibrate for 10 minutes before making time zero reading. 5. Made time zero reading then exposed the plant to coldness. 6. Inserted potometer in refrigerator to decrease the temperature. 7. Recorded our results by making pipette readings every 3 minutes for 30 minutes. Data Starting Level: 0.1mL Surface Area: 0.0097 m2 Water Information After Treatment Time Interval (minutes) 6 9 12 15 18 0.087 0.082 0.08 0.075 0.072 0.013 1.03 0.018 1.34 0.200 1.86 0.025 2.06 0.028 2.58

Water Level after time (mL) Water Loss (mL) Water Loss per m2

0 0.1 0 0

3 0.09 0.01 0

21 0.07 0.030 2.99

24 0.065 0.035 3.09

27 0.061 0.039 3.61

30 0.058

0.042 4.02

Water Loss (mL/m2) due to Different Treatments Take every 3 Minutes Treatment 0 Control Light Light Temp Temp Humidity

TIME (MINUTES) 3 .413 .414 0 .515 0 0


6 .909 .69 0 .928 1.03 0


9 1.405 1.103 0.148 1.753 1.34 .172


12 1.901 1.655 0.295 2.474 1.86 .172


15 2.4 2.345 0.443 2.784 2.06 .172


18 2.975 2.397 1.033 2.784 2.58 .345


21 3.471 3.724 1.476 3.196 2.99 .345


24 3.967 4.552 2.362 3.608 3.09 .345


27 4.463 5.379 3.099 6 3.814 3.61 .345


30 4.959 6.207 3.838 ? 4.02 .345


0 0 0 0 0 0

Mayer 3

Graph: The Rate of Transpiration Under Various Environmental Treatments

Water Loss due to Different Treatments (mL/m2)

Time (Minutes)

Calculations Rate of Transpiration = Control: Light: Light: Temp: Temp: = 0.1653 mL/m2 per minute = 0.2069 mL/m2 per minute = 0.12793 mL/m2 per minute = 0.1413 mL/m2 per minute = 0.134 mL/m2 per minute

Mayer 4 Humidity: Wind: = 0.0115 mL/m2 per minute = 0.305 mL/m2 per minute

Conclusion Transpiration carries moisture through plants from roots to small pores on the underside of leaves, where it changes to water vapor and is released into the atmosphere. Transpiration in plants is controlled by water potential. The change in water potential in leaves causes a gradient, which moves water upward from the roots to the leaves. Transpiration in plants is controlled by water potential. This change in water potential in leaves causes a gradient by which water can be moved upward. In this lab, each environmental factor affected the rate of transpiration. Wind and high light intensity increased it, while low light, increase and decrease in temperature, and humidity all decreased the rate of respiration in comparison to the controls rate. The control was a plant left to transpire in room temperature without any environmental treatments. Since there were no changed factors, the rate of transpiration measured for the control was the natural rate of transpiration for our plant. The plant was exposed to a normal amount of light; therefore, the stomata on the leaves surfaces were open to allow for water evaporation. The room temperature had little or no effect on the water potential because there was no pressure on the plant; therefore, water did not transpire. Next, altered light intensities affected the rate. For the plant put into an environment of increased light, the rate of transpiration increased because the rate that stomata open increases with intense light, which increases the rate of photosynthesis. The rate of transpiration is thus increased, and so is water loss. As the leaf absorbs light, some of the light energy is converted to heat. The rate of transpiration increases as temperature increases. The opposite happened when the plant was placed in the dark. As light levels decrease in intensity, water loss decreases at the leaves surfaces because the rate of photosynthesis diminishes, therefore more stomata are closed. Since the stomata are open in light, there is less pressure potential inside the plant, causing an overall decrease of

Mayer 5 water potential within the plant. However, relative to the water potential of the atmosphere, the water potential within the plant is still greater. This causes water to transpire as it moves from high to low water potential when light is increased. The water escapes also because the stomata are open. High and low temperatures also affected the rate of transpiration in the plant. Ideally, high temperatures would actually increase the rate of transpiration by increasing the entropy of water within the leaves. Even with more closed stomata, this would increase the pressure potential within the plant. However, the water potential inside would still be greater in relation to the water potential of the surrounding atmosphere and because water travels from areas of high water potential to low, transpiration would still occur, if not at a faster rate from increased pressure. According to the data collected, however, the rate decreased. This could be due to the initial closing of stomata to prevent water loss. I think that if left to transpire in high heat for a longer period of time, then the rate would slowly increase. The low temperature adjusted the rate of transpiration as hypothesized. Low temperature would decrease the rate of transpiration by decreasing the entropy of the water and therefore making evaporation more difficult. Temperature also affects the rate of transpiration. In the ideal situation, high temperatures would increase the rate of transpiration by increasing the entropy of water inside the leaves. Even with more closed stomata, this would increase the pressure potential in the plant. This value, however, would still be greater in relation to the water potential of the surrounding atmosphere. Since water travels from areas of high to low water potential, transpiration would still occur, usually at a faster rate. The data collected did not reflect this logic. This could be due to the initial closing of stomata to prevent water loss due to the heat. If left to transpire, the plant would have increased the rate of transpiration. The low temperature decreased as it should have because the entropy of the water decreased, making evaporation and transpiration more difficult. The next conditions the plant incurred were humidity and wind. Humidity decreased the rate of transpiration the most, while wind increased the rate the most. Humidity decreased

Mayer 6 the rate because the area outside the plant began to have a higher water concentration. Water is less likely to transpire into the atmosphere when air is humid because water does not travel against the concentration gradient. The wind, on the other hand, carried humidity away and replaced it with drier air, decreasing the water potential of the air and making the air more likely to transpire. My hypothesis was half correct. I was correct about the wind creating the highest increase in the rate of transpiration, but I was incorrect about darkness creating the highest decrease in the rate. Humidity decreases the rate of transpiration the most. This is because the humidity or lack thereof influences water potential the most, thus affecting the rate of transpiration more than any of the other treatments. Darkness did not have the lowest rate of transpiration because the closed stomata were merely closed windows that did not let the water escape. This did not affect the water potential of the plant. Weak Areas The slurry approach did not work as intended so we utilized a refrigerator instead. The stand on which the potometer and the plant were attached to was too tall to stand up straight in the fridge so it had to be placed at an angle. This continually moved the potometer, which could have, and probably did, skewed the results. Also, the temperature of the refrigerator was not controllable so we could not get the temperature as low as we hoped. Due to time constraints from having to come up with the refrigerator idea after the ice slurry did not work out, we did not have time to measure the surface area of our plant. We got this information from another group, therefore our readings were slightly inaccurate. Contributions I do not believe the contributions of our team were equal. While collecting the data, it seemed like two of our team members were not really doing much besides talk about offtopic subjects and eat. Afterwards, they would just ask for the data from Mariana and me

Mayer 7 without looking at the actual experiment. One contributed later, however, by helping with the calculations. Suggestions In this lab, the potometer values were very difficult to discern. I question the accuracy of all of our values because of the illegibility. Also, it was difficult to secure the potometer on the ring stand, and because we had to keep tilting and maneuvering the potometer, air bubbles settled in, skewing the results. With a more precise reading and more secured potometer, the results of the lab would be easier to obtain and more accurate.