Jake Nordstrom Science 6 11-14-13

PHOTOSYNTHESIS SUMMATIVE REPORT PROBLEM: If you double the distance of light, will the rate of photosynthesis will decrease by half? HYPOTHESIS: If you double the distance of light, the rate of photosynthesis will decrease by about 45%. THEORY: Photosynthesis is when a plant uses reactance to make food and oxygen. Photosynthesis uses sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide. It rearranges the molecules to make oxygen, and glucose. The water comes out of the roots (from the soil), and goes up the xylem. The CO2 comes from the air, and enters through little holes in the bottom of the leaves, called the stomata. It then makes glucose and oxygen. It releases the oxygen, and uses the Glucose for cellular respiration. The sunlight helps this whole process by producing light energy. The light energy goes into the plant and then helps rearrange the reactance into the products. I made my prediction because of how if you decrease the amount of sunlight that the plant is getting for photosynthesis, then it will slow down the process, therefor, having less air bubbles come up from the stem.

PROCEDURE: For Light Intensity 1. Measure and cut at an angle elodea 7cm. 2. Remove a few leaves from end of stem and slightly crush the end of the stem. 3. Make sure both elodeas have the same amount of leaves. 4. Measure mass in grams and record. 5. Put elodea stem side up in a test tube softly. 6. Fill test tube with water and baking soda solution (1 tsp to 100 mL of water). 7. Put tube in rack and put on top of 2 test books (6.3 cm from top of test tube). 8. On another lamp, do the same procedure, but only use 1 textbook under the light (that is 3.1 away). 9. Place both tubes directly under the lamp. 10. Turn on both lamps and wait 1 minute for them to warm up. 11. Split you group in half, and make one group record one experiment each. 12. After 1 minute, begin counting small and large bubbles for 3 minutes. Record data carefully, making sure to only count the bubbles that come from the stem. 13. Compare the data.

DATA/OBSERVATIONS:
Trial 1 0.8 grams
Small x 1 Distance 6.3 cm 19x1=19

Oxygen Produced in 3 minutes at 6.3 and 12.6 cm

Medium x 2 6x2=12 Large x 3 4x3=12 Total 43

12.6 cm

7x1=7

3x2=6

2x3=6

19

Notes: Trial 2 1.5 grams

Small x 1 Distance 6.3 cm 12.6 cm 70x1=70 17x1=15

Oxygen Produced in 3 minutes at 6.3 and 12.6 cm

Medium x 2 8x2=16 10x2=201 Large x 3 3x3=9 3x3=9 Total 95 46

Averages for 2 Trials Distance Trial 1 Trial 2 Total/2 Average 6.3 43 95 138 69 12.6 cm 19 46 65 32.5

Light Intensity 5cm CLASS PERIOD AVERAGES 1 2 3 4 6 7 TOTAL/6 AVERAGE 10cm % Oxygen Decrease 78.6% 56.25% 58.6% 65.2% 40.4%

35.5 16 42.3 60.3 45.8 25 224.9 37.5

7.6 7 17.5 21 27.3 19.5 99.9 16.7

0.55

2013 AVERAGE DATA IN 3 MINUTES FROM 6 DIFFERENT CLASSES Light Intensity

5cm CLASS PERIOD AVERAGES 1 2 3 4 6 7 TOTAL/6 AVERAGE 35 29 16.3 17 52.3 40.8 190.4/6 31.7 51.5 10 12.3 7.5 29.5 45 155.8 26 10cm % Oxygen Decrease/Increase

Comparing Light Intensity Average

80 70 CO2 Produced 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Group Period 6 Averages 7th Grade 32.5 45.8 27.3 31.7 26 6.3 cm 12.6 cm 69

QUESTIONS: 1. 2. 3. 4. How is light intensity measured? What climates produce the highest rates of photosynthesis, why? What types of plants thrive in indirect light, why? Using 2012 data, what do you notice?

Answers: 1. To measure light intensity, you use a tool called a photometer. 2. When the temperature goes up, so does the photosynthesis rate. It goes up because there is more sunlight and CO2 in the air, therefore the rate goes up rapidly. 3. Tropical plants because of how the like bright light, but not direct light. 4. When the light goes farther away (2x) the rate decreases (by ), and according to last years data, it decreased by (about) 0.55%.

Conclusion: For our lab, my group was testing light intensity, and weather it would increase or decrease when the distance of light was decreased. I hypothesized that if the amount of light was decrease, or moved away, the amount of photosynthesis (or air bubbles) would decrease by about 45%. After testing, our data showed that if you decreased the light by 50% (or doubled the distance) it would decrease. In EVERY group except for group one and seven, photosynthesis decreased. In conclusion, my hypothesis was correct according to the data of groups 2-6. Analysis: There were only a few discrepancies in our testing, but I found one that stood out. I thought that since we decreased the light by 50%, it would make sense for the amount of photosynthesis. Unfortunately, according to the tests done by all the groups (average), it only decreased by a little less than 20%. In our group (group 6) we had a decrease of 52.9%. However, none of the other groups came as close as us, which says that either we were wrong, or everyone else was wrong. If you wanted a more reliable answer, you could remove group 1 and 7s data (which showed an increase), you might be able to get a more reliable answer. After taking away both of the outliers, the average percent was at an 47% decrease. This shows a more reliable answer because of how when we doubled the distance of light, it made sense for the rate of photosynthesis to slow down. Group 1 and 7, due to their increasing of photosynthesis, did spoil the data. Even though it might have been the true data that they received could have been right, it is most likely not. However, something as little as a bump to the test tube could have caused all of the oxygen to come out (or some of it). If someone did happen to mess up the experiment, they could have done it over again, but that would have taken more time, which isnt controlled. With the time crunch, there could also be the possibility of the sunlight affecting it, or the shade shading it too much. The light could be positioned differently than the other trial. It could be as simple as the elodea being cut wrong. This is why you need to have a controlled experiment.

Bibliography:
Coolidge-Stolz M.D., Elizabeth, et al. Focus On Life Science. Boston, Mass: Prentice Hall, 2008. Young, Paul. The Botany Coloring Book. Cambridge, New York: Harper and Row, 1982.