Plant Science
Karem.1
paper-_poster_outlines.pdf
11/25/2015
1
Weather is warming up
Weather is cooling down
Plant Respiration
• Respiration is a 24 hr process longer respiration, more C loss
11/25/2015
2
Mitochondria
Plant Cell
Respiration > photosynthesis less mass
Heat stress Normal
11/25/2015
3
Seed/plant storage
Cold storage
Cold temperature Low Oxygen (high N) Low humidity
11/25/2015
4
11/25/2015
5
A.100% B.80% C.70% D.60%
Numbers
Methods
11/25/2015
6
Seed dormancy refers to the prevention of germination of a live seed. A non-dormant seed will germinate under ideal conditions where a dormant seed will not. A dormant seed may be either physically dormant – meaning that a weakening of the seed coat is necessary for germination – or physiologically dormant – meaning that some criteria (such as a cold, dry, or warm period) must be met in order to initiate a breakdown of inhibiting chemicals. In this experiment physical dormancy will be explored through the use of Lupinus seeds, one genus that has a waxy, outer coating that allows for dormancy (Nava, González,Barra, Fernández, 2010).
Introduction
The objective of this experiment is to determine what difference type of scarification has on the germination rate of lupine seeds.
Objective and Purpose
The alternative hypothesis is that the seeds treated with mechanical scarification will have a higher percent germination than will other treatments or control as supported by the results found in Nava et. al.’s 2010 experiment. The null hypothesis is that there will be no difference in germination rates between treatments.
Materials: ❖80 Lupine seeds ➢20 untreated (control) ➢20 soaked in hot water ➢20 soaked in sulfuric acid ➢20 mechanically scarred
❖Potting soil ❖16 6-packs ❖Identification stakes Procedure: 1)Arrange the 6-packs in groups of eight resulting in two
trays of 4X8. 2)Loosely pack all trays with soil and label each of the four
columns in both trays with the treatment to be planted using the stakes. Determine which tray is “A” and designate the other “B.”
3)Using a pen, or similar object, create a hole approximately .5-1 inch deep in the center of each pack and place one of the appropriate Lupine seeds inside and gently cover with soil.
4)Place trays in a greenhouse and check periodically for germination. Record results.
Methods and Materials Results
(Graph 1) Lupinus polyphyllus A percentage of seed growth shown that the control seeds had the highest percentage of growth under normal conditions in the mist house
Conclusions
The results of the experiment revealed that, on average, seeds soaked in hot water had the highest germination rate while the control and mechanically scarred seeds had the next highest. Similar to the results found in Dashti et. al.’s experiment in 2012, acid scarification seemed to have a negative impact on seed germination. these results do not support either the null or alternative hypothesis, although it is possible that a repeated experiment may yield different results due to the discrepancy between the two trials’ mechanical scarification results.
References
Dashti, F., Ghahremani‐Majd, H., & Esna‐Ashari, M. (2012). Overcoming seed dormancy of mooseer
(Allium hirtifolium) through cold stratification, gibberellicacid, and acid
scarification [PDF]. Journal of Forestry Research, 23(4), 707‐710.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11676‐012‐0314‐9
Nava, P. G., González, F. D., Barra, J. E., & Fernández, A. C. (2010). Effect of Scarification, Self‐Inhibition,
and Sowing Depth on Seed Germination of Lupinus campestris. Chilean
Journal of Agricultural Research, 70. Retrieved from
California State University, Chico
Michael Nelson, Rebecca Pilakowski, Stephanie Schwinn, and Kayla Shields
Lupine Seed Germination and Scarification
Hypothesis
(Graph 2) Lupinus polyphyllus B percentage of seed growth shown that the mechanical seeds had the highest percentage of growth while using a hot plate in the mist house
© 2014
(Figure 1) materials: (1) potting soil, (2) treated seeds, (3) labels, (4) transplant cells
1 2 3 4
(Figure 2) Seed Germination visual
(Figure 3) planting; begining of experiment (Figure 4) after germination; end of experiment
Table 1 and 2 represent Lupinus polyphyllus A and B. Table represents the polyphyllus A, which is the germination rate under normal conditions in the mist house. Table 2 represents polyphyllus B which was on a heating pad in the mist house.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3 Figure 4
\
Introduction
Acknowledgements
Experiment Photos
ConclusionProcedures
�University Farm �Ana Medic
Objective
To observe the effects of organic mulch on plants.
Effects of Mulch on Plant Growth David Gonzalez, Nicolas Giraudo, Rylee Brown, Elio Hernandez, Adam Zuffi California State University, Chico Plant Soil Science 101
1. Transplant kale and broccoli plants into your garden plots.
2. Remove all weeds around all your plants. 3. Cover one side of the garden plot with a layer of organic mulch using randomization. Use a 2 inch deep layer.
4. Leave one side untreated as a control. 5. Record the initial heights of plants. 6. Do not weed throughout process. 7. After many weeks of waiting, observe the change in height as well as the number of weeds surrounding each plant.
8. Harvest the plants, record the plant weight and head weight, then calculate the harvest index.
In conclusion, we learned about the effectiveness of mulch and its uses. One thing that we learned from our results and observations is that mulch has little effect on helping plant growth even though it retains moisture and insulates soil. With the help of mulch, both broccoli and kale plants had a slightly larger average yield weight than those without it. Second thing we found out is that a plant with mulch at it’s base is more likely to have less weeds than a plant with no mulch. That is because it prevents seedlings from germinating unless they are already rooted in the ground. Plants that contained mulch appeared overall better in condition than the other plants. As you can see in our experiment pictures our plants grew at a normal rate with no complications. In the end, we all concluded that the use of mulch helped our plants grow healthy and sturdy. It especially aided in keeping the weed growth to a minimum, thus, it is a great benefit when gardening.
Mulch is any material applied to the soil surface that acts to retain moisture, to insulate soil, stabilize the soil, to protect plants, or to control weeds. Organic mulches are straw, grass clippings, leaves, and shredded bark.
Materials
1. Broccoli (Pac‐Man) transplanted seedlings, approximately 4-6 weeks old
2. Kale (Red Russian) 3. Mulch: Rice hulls 4. Spatula 5. Mini post hole digger 6. Ruler
7. Scale
Chart
Results
TRT CULTI‐ VAR
HEIGHT, IN NUMBER OF WEEDS
PLAN‐T WT, KG
HEAD WT, KG
HARVES‐T INDEX %
Weeks Dates Wk 0 Wk 13 Wk 0 Wk 13 Wk 13 Wk 13 Wk 13
Mulch Kale 6.1 25.4 0 3 .286 0 0
Mulch Kale 5.4 26.1 0 4 1.03 0 0
Mulch Kale 5.6 23.5 0 3 .416 0 0
Mulch Broccol i
4.5 18.3 0 4 .804 .165 20.5
Mulch Broccol i
4.3 19.2 0 4 1.20 .223 18.6
Mulch Broccol i
5.2 22.6 0 2 1.49 .285 19.1
Control Kale 6.1 21.8 0 5 .374 0 0
Control Kale 5.9 24.3 0 7 .689 0 0
Control Kale 5.6 24.9 0 8 .566 0 0
Control Broccol i
5.1 17.8 0 6 .842 .163 19.4
Control Broccol i
4.8 20.7 0 7 1.16 .241 20.8
Control Broccol i
4.6 22.9 0 9 1.25 .221 17.7
The kale plants with mulch yielded an average plant weight of 0.57kg, while the plants without mulch yielded 0.54kg. As for broccoli, those covered with mulch yielded an average head weight of 0.22kg while those without mulch yielded 0.21kg. So the mulch did not prove to aid in the plant’s growth. As for weed presence, those with mulch had an estimated average of 3 weeds around the plant, while those without mulch had an average of 7 weeds surrounding.
11/25/2015
7
A.100% B.80% C.70% D.60%
11/25/2015
8
Methods
11/25/2015
9
11/25/2015
10
11/25/2015
11
11/25/2015
12
The effect of independent variables on dependent variables Author name and affiliation
• Introduction
• Conclusion
• Methods
• References
• Results and discussion
• Contacts
• Acknowledgment
11/25/2015
13
11/25/2015
14
Abstract
• In less than 250 words
1. Reason of the study (Objectives & hypothesis)
2. Methods used
3. Results
4. Take home message / conclusion
In text citation:
• One author Author's last name, year of publication (Zakeri, 2014)
• Two authors First author & second author (last names), year of publication (Zakeri & Bueckert, 2013)
• Three or more authors First author (last name) et al., year of publication (Zakeri et al., 2013)
Fertilizer increased the root circumferences by 10% compared to compost (Table 1). In comparison, root fresh weigh was similar under both fertilizer and compost treatments. These results are similar to the work by Smith (2010), who found radish ….
11/25/2015
15
Have a second pair of eyes read your paper OR
Write it, leave it and read it a day after
Avoid unnecessary information
11/25/2015
16
Introduction: • Paragraph one: describe radishes (benefits, economy …)
• Paragraph two: fertilizers and compost and plant growth
• Paragraph three: example of past studies
• Paragraph four: hypothesis and objectives
Presented in chronological order.
Organize different steps / ideas/ results in different paragraphs
Round the numbers to one
decimal
11/25/2015
17
Where is Chico: 39.6° N 121.8°W
A. . B. . C. . D. .
AB
D
C
Experimental design:
I. Experiment had 3 treatments (Fertilizer, Compost, Control)
II. Each treatment was replicated 3 times
III. 3x3=9 experiment had 9 experimental units (pots)
IV. At planting, 4 seeds (or whatever you planted) were planted in each pot. A week after, pots were thinned to 2 plants per pot.
V. At harvest, leaf chlorophyll content was measured, using a SPAD chlorophyll meter.
VI.Leaf area was measured using the Li-cor Leaf Area Meter, Model …
VII.Data were analyzed in Microsoft Excel
Don’t write We measured root circumference I harvested radishes They recorded leaf surface area (cm^2)
Write Root was measured Radishes were harvested Leaf surface area (cm2) was recorded
11/25/2015
18
In text citation:
• (Zakeri, 2015)
• (Zakeri & Bueckert, 2014)
• (Zakeri, et al., year)
No first name, no initials
11/25/2015
19
• Results:
• The same process goes to finding the average of the data, except to type AVERAGE instead of STDEV. The Root circumference for my control group (Rep:1) was 4.25 cm, (Rep:2) 1.75 cm and (Rep:3) 3.75 cm, giving me the average of 3.25 cm and the standard deviation of 1.3 cm. The Leaf area for my control group was (Rep:1) 71.5 cm^2, (Rep:2) 48.6 cm^2, and (Rep:3) 92.8, which gave me the average of 70.9 cm^2 and the standard deviation of 22.1 cm^2. The root fresh weight of my control group was (Rep:1) .9g, (Rep:2) .15g, and (Rep:3) .9g, which gave me the average of .58 g and .3g standard deviation.
These numbers/ values are already presented in tables and graphs, don’t repeat them. Describe the values:
• Average root circumference was larger/ smaller in the control than in ….. • Leaf surface area was larger/ smaller in the fertilizer than in compost and
control ….
Citation in text
