For the aquarium #1 that contained gravel only, we predicted that the level of carbon dioxide would be 0 and the level of oxygen would be 0. We thought this would be the case for aquarium #1 because it contained only gravel and no living organisms. In Aquarium #2 that contained gravel and snails only, we predicted that the level of carbon dioxide would increase and the level of oxygen would decrease. We thought this would be the case because this aquarium contains gravel and snails, and snails need more cellular respiration than photosynthesis. In aquarium #3 that contained gravel and plants only, we predicted that the level of carbon dioxide would decrease and the level of oxygen would increase. We thought this would be the case for aquarium
…show more content…
Our data explanation for tank #1 didn’t support my predication because the CO2 level was decreased from 1.5 to 1 and the O2 level decreased from 7.6 to 0.1 We predicted there would be no cellular respiration or photosynthesis levels, and our results proved there was a decrease in both. This could be explained by the bacteria in the water using CO2 and O2. The data for aquarium #3 was also not supported. For tank #3 the data wasn’t supported from the predication because CO2 increased from 3 to 7.1 and the O2 decreased from 8 to 0.5. We predicted there would be greater photosynthesis levels than cellular respiration but our results were the opposite. This means the plants were respiring at a greater rate than they were photosynthesizing. My data for aquarium #2 was supported. In tank #2 our predication was supported because our CO2 was increased from 5 to 5.8 and the O2 was decreased from 7.2 from 0.1. I predicted that there would be more cellular respiration, and in the graph it was 16 % cellular respiration and -98.61% photosynthesis. My data in aquarium #4 was supported because for aquarium #4 my prediction was that photosynthesis and cellular respiration would be equal energy, because in the graph my percentages were equal numbers for CO2 and O2. Also, tank #4 was supported from my prediction even though O2 is 0.1 higher than CO2; it still has equal energy. My data in aquarium #5 was supported because CO2 and O2 decreases
Our data explanation for tank #1 didn’t support my predication because the CO2 level was decreased from 1.5 to 1 and the O2 level decreased from 7.6 to 0.1 We predicted there would be no cellular respiration or photosynthesis levels, and our results proved there was a decrease in both. This could be explained by the bacteria in the water using CO2 and O2. The data for aquarium #3 was also not supported. For tank #3 the data wasn’t supported from the predication because CO2 increased from 3 to 7.1 and the O2 decreased from 8 to 0.5. We predicted there would be greater photosynthesis levels than cellular respiration but our results were the opposite. This means the plants were respiring at a greater rate than they were photosynthesizing. My data for aquarium #2 was supported. In tank #2 our predication was supported because our CO2 was increased from 5 to 5.8 and the O2 was decreased from 7.2 from 0.1. I predicted that there would be more cellular respiration, and in the graph it was 16 % cellular respiration and -98.61% photosynthesis. My data in aquarium #4 was supported because for aquarium #4 my prediction was that photosynthesis and cellular respiration would be equal energy, because in the graph my percentages were equal numbers for CO2 and O2. Also, tank #4 was supported from my prediction even though O2 is 0.1 higher than CO2; it still has equal energy. My data in aquarium #5 was supported because CO2 and O2 decreases