Methods Some setup was required to conduct this experiment. The materials needed were five transplants, soil, carbonated water, vinegar, five clear plastic containers, an aluminum tray, and pH strips. The transplants used in this experiment were romaine lettuce transplants (Lactuca sativa). Each of the five plastic containers were punctured underneath to allow for water drainage. Each container was received a transplant and was filled with soil. The five conditions tested were the control (water with pH 7), carbonated water (pH 5), carbonated water (pH 6), vinegar (pH 5), and vinegar (pH 6). Vinegar serves as a secondary control to monitor the sole effect of pH on plant growth. The data from the secondary controls will serve as a background
…show more content…
Vinegar effectively decreases the pH of the soil without affecting the nutritional intake of the plant. The pH of store-bought carbonated water (Arrowhead Sparkling Water) had a pH of 5. Using the pH strips to measure acidity, a stock of carbonated water was diluted to a pH of 6 and stored for later. Likewise, store-bought vinegar runs around pH 2.4, so two stocks of vinegar were diluted with water to a pH of 5 and 6. These were stored for later. Over a 7-day period, the treatment was added once a day with a quarter cup of each respective treatment solution. On Day 4, treatment was halted due to rainy weather. This was to avoid the overwatering of the plants, which can have a detrimental effect on plant growth. Each day, the weight, height, and number of leaves of each plant was recorded. The data will be plotted onto a scatterplot and regression lines will be calculated. The slope of these lines will determine which treatment correlated with faster …show more content…
This experiment serves as a preliminary trial to understand the effects carbonated water and pH has on plant growth. Plant growth was defined by three parameters: plant weight, plant height, and leaf count. While similar trends were not seen across parameters, there were trends within the parameters. In plant weight, all treatments experienced a greater rate of weight increase. A pH of 6 seemed to work best, with the carbonated water treatment experiencing the greatest rate. Similar trends were not seen in the rates of plant height increase and leaf count increase. However, when these rates were plotted against each other, there was a negative correlation between these two rates. While not statistically significant, this does suggest that perhaps plants not growing in height are making it up in foliage count. This relationship is only seen among the treatments, with the control serving as an
Vinegar effectively decreases the pH of the soil without affecting the nutritional intake of the plant. The pH of store-bought carbonated water (Arrowhead Sparkling Water) had a pH of 5. Using the pH strips to measure acidity, a stock of carbonated water was diluted to a pH of 6 and stored for later. Likewise, store-bought vinegar runs around pH 2.4, so two stocks of vinegar were diluted with water to a pH of 5 and 6. These were stored for later. Over a 7-day period, the treatment was added once a day with a quarter cup of each respective treatment solution. On Day 4, treatment was halted due to rainy weather. This was to avoid the overwatering of the plants, which can have a detrimental effect on plant growth. Each day, the weight, height, and number of leaves of each plant was recorded. The data will be plotted onto a scatterplot and regression lines will be calculated. The slope of these lines will determine which treatment correlated with faster …show more content…
This experiment serves as a preliminary trial to understand the effects carbonated water and pH has on plant growth. Plant growth was defined by three parameters: plant weight, plant height, and leaf count. While similar trends were not seen across parameters, there were trends within the parameters. In plant weight, all treatments experienced a greater rate of weight increase. A pH of 6 seemed to work best, with the carbonated water treatment experiencing the greatest rate. Similar trends were not seen in the rates of plant height increase and leaf count increase. However, when these rates were plotted against each other, there was a negative correlation between these two rates. While not statistically significant, this does suggest that perhaps plants not growing in height are making it up in foliage count. This relationship is only seen among the treatments, with the control serving as an