Botany Lab #1: Measuring the Rate of Photosynthesis

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this lab was to investigate the differences of the rate of photosynthesis in
two species of plant with distinct leaf characteristics. The specific question that was
being investigated was, what factors affect the rate of photosynthesis in leaves
(chloroplasts)? Photosynthesis is the process in which plants produce nutrients for
themselves through a series of light dependent and independent reactions that use
water, light photons, and carbon dioxide to create sugars. Oxygen is one of the waste
products of this process. The production of oxygen during photosynthesis is the reason
small disks removed from leaves will float in a water and soap solution. In this lab, leaf
disks were deoxygenated with a syringe and allowed to sink to the bottom of the
solution. One variable of this experiment was carbon dioxide: some were provided with
a source of carbon dioxide after deoxygenation, and some were not. The second variable
of this experiment was species type. One trial was carried out with spinacia oleracea
leaves, and a second was carried out with ficus elastica. First, it was hypothesized that
providing carbon dioxide to the leaf disks would increase the number that were able to
undergo photosynthesis and float to the surface of the solution. Once this was proven
through observation of other trials (e.g. those of peers), a secondary hypothesis was
formed.

It was predicted that the ficus elastica disks would take a longer period of time to
produce the oxygen required to float to the top of the solution, in both control and
experiment trials, due to the increased cuticle on the dermal layer of the leaves, the latex
content of the leaves, and the traditionally lower concentrations of carbon dioxide found
in the native habitat of ficus elastica.

MATERIALS
1. Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
2. Liquid dish soap
3. Plastic syringe w/o needle
4. Fresh leaf material
a. Spinacia oleracea
b. Ficus elastica
5. Hole punch
6. Glass cup
7. Stopwatch
8. Light Source
 9. Distilled water

METHOD
In order to prepare for each trial of this experiment, a few steps had to occur. Listed is
the full procedure, with notes for specific trials:

1. Create a solution of liquid detergent by combining three drops of dish soap

to 70 ml of water
2. (In case of CO2 trials:) Create a sodium bicarbonate solution by mixing 3g
of baking soda with 300 ml of water.
a. Omit sodium bicarbonate for control trials
3. Add one drop of liquid detergent solution to 300 ml solution. Mix gently
4. Collect leaf disks by punching holes in leaf (avoid vascular bundles)
a. 20 leaf disks are needed for each species of plant; 10 for each
trial
5. Deoxygenate 10 leaf disks for each trial
a. Place leaf disks into a syringe and pull in a small volume of
the desired solution. Replace the plunger and push out air
b. Create a vacuum in the syringe by covering the tip of the
syringe and drawing back on the plunger
c. Release vacuum and repeat until disks begin to sink
6. Replace in solution and expose to light
7. Immediately start a timer and record the number of disks that have risen
to the surface in minute intervals up to ten minutes

1
DATA

Spinacia Floating
Time Spinacia Floating Ficus Floating Ficus Floating
Disks Control
(min) Disks in CaCO3 Disks Control Disks in CaCO3

1 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0

4 0 1 0 3

5 1 2 0 5

6 3 2 0 8

7 5 4 0 9

8 6 6 0 9

9 7 7 0 10

2
10 8 8 0 10

DATA DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The first trial, the spinacia control, started showing upward movement of the first disk
after 3 minutes had elapsed. After 6 minutes had passed in this trial, only two disks had
reached the surface. In the 7th minute, that number double to four disks before adopting
an almost linear disk-per-minute pattern up to eight disks in ten minutes. The second
spinacia trial, with sodium bicarbonate, had a very similar pattern. The first movement
did not occur until after 4 minutes had passed. After that, two disks rose per minute up
to five disks in 7 minutes, and then the pattern mirrors that of the other spinacia trial.

The ficus elastica trials started with one was an absolute failure due to human error,
which was not recorded or factored into the results. The next trial was with sodium
bicarbonate: three disks rose together after 3 minutes had elapsed, followed within a
minute by two more, and by the 6th minute, eight disks had risen in total. This was
followed by a short plateau at nine disks before all ten rose to the surface after only 9
minutes had passed. The trial without sodium bicarbonate was not nearly as successful:

3
not a single disk rose. They were not, after 10 minutes, even expressing small bubbles.

It was noticed that all leaf disks, with the exception of the ficus elastica without a source
of carbon dioxide, did eventually perform at least some photosynthesis. In both cases of
the spinacia leaves, this was expressed in a total of 8 disks in the ten minute time frame.
In the elastica leaves that had access to carbon dioxide, all 10 disks underwent
photosynthesis. However, in the elastica leaves where there was no source of carbon
dioxide, no disks underwent photosynthesis. This means that elastica plants require a
very strong concentration of carbon dioxide to produce oxygen through photosynthesis.
Although the spinacia leaves were immersed in different solutions, they had a generally
similar rate of photosynthesis; however, the trial in which there was a source of carbon
dioxide had an earlier start to the disks upward ascent. In fact, in both trials with carbon
dioxide, the disks began to move upward after three minutes had elapsed, although the
elastica disks followed much more quickly. From this, it can be inferred that ficus
elastica plants undergo photosynthesis either in a shorter period of time, or with less
carbon dioxide needed as a reactant.

The lack of any photosynthesis in the control trial with ficus elastica has a few possible

implications. It may be due to some sort of human error in the procedure: the disks may
have been handled poorly, spent too much time removed from the plant from which they
came before the trial, or did not receive the same treatment as the other trials. It may
also mean that elastica is very heavily reliant on carbon dioxide. Another possibility
worthy of consideration - especially given the sharper slope of the graphical line in ficus
elastica trials - is that this plant is a C4
plant. Figure 3 credit @
Photorespiration and C4 Plants

As found in FACTORS LIMITING

PHOTOSYNTHETIC RATES OF
DIFFERENT PLANT SPECIES, Recent
studies [in various countries] have
revealed a wide range in rate of
photosynthesis among
species...Hesketh (1963) also found that
species with low photosynthesis increased their rates when provided with more light
and CO2 (pg 2). This suggests that it is highly likely that the vast difference in rate of
photosynthesis between these two species is normal and to be expected. Further reading
in the aforementioned paper yields that this change in rate of photosynthesis can be

4
attributed to the individual factors that separate families of plants, including ecological
factors or limited stomatal area.

CONCLUSION
The purpose of this lab was to investigate the differences in rate of photosynthesis
between two distinct species of plant with varying leaf and ecological characteristics. It
was hypothesized that a source of carbon dioxide in the form of sodium bicarbonate
would increase the rate of photosynthesis in both species of plant being investigated.
After this hypothesis was supported by the date of other studies, a secondary hypothesis
was formed. Here, it was predicted that the ficus elastica disks would have a slower rate
of photosynthesis regardless of concentrations of carbon dioxide. As seen in the date
found in figures 1 and 2, the data does not support the hypothesis. In the presence of
sodium bicarbonate, the ficus elastica had a very fast rate of photosynthesis. As research
has shown, this may be due to possible status as a C 4 plant.

Although procedures seemed to work effectively, it could be suggested to do a repeat of

the control ficus elastica trial. The lack of any proof of photosynthesis is inconsistent with
information provided through other species of plants. It may be valuable to conduct
further experiments on ficus elastica with a variety of concentrations of sodium
bicarbonate in order to confirm the reliance of elastica leaves on a strong source of
carbon dioxide.

As further exploration is conducted into the physiology of plants and the processes of
photosynthesis, it is valuable to consider these results: the biological processes of plants
can and will vary based on species and ecological factors, much the same as in animal
species. Humans rely a great deal on the products of photosynthesis and the
consumption of carbon dioxide via plants, meaning that it is beneficial to continue to
conduct studies into the interconnected nature of plant species and photosynthesis.

REFERENCES
1. "CO2 Emissions on 0.1 Degree Grid." Emissions Database for Global
Atmospheric Research. Joint Research Centre, n.d. Web. 08 Sept. 2016.
2. El-Sharkawy, Malbrouk. "FACTORS LIMITING PHOTOSYNTHETIC RATES OF
DIFFERENT PLANT SPECIES." Academia.edu. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.
3. Lynch, Patrick. "NASA Computer Model Provides a New Portrait of Carbon
Dioxide." NASA. NASA, 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Sept. 2016.
4. "Photorespiration and C4 Plants." Biology-Pages. N.p., 29 Dec. 2010. Web. 10
Sept. 2016.

5
 5. Spilatro, Steven. "How Do the Light Response Curves of C3 vs C4 Plants
Differ?" Photosynthesis Investigation Study Guide. Department of Biology -
Marietta College, n.d. Web. 09 Sept. 2016.

Rubric rating submitted on: 9/12/2016, 9:47:57 PM by sbayer@psdschools.org

Insufficie 1.5 Partially 2.5 Proficient 3.5 Advanced
nt Proficient 3 4
Evidence 2
1

Introducti I have I am I can My

on little or missing provide a introducti
Advanced no some of clear on
4 introducti the the introducti connects
on required on that deep
elements contains knowledg
to my the e and
introducti purpose, reasoning
on. question, to all of
backgrou the
nd info, required
and elements
hypothesi
s.

Supportiv I use little My I can I can

e or no supportiv provide 2- provide
Evidence supportiv e 3 pieces multiple
Advanced e evidence of data as (4+)
4 evidence. is limited supportiv pieces of
(1-2 e evidence
pieces) evidence to
incomplet that support/
e, or supports disproves
fuzzy to or my
my main disproves hypothesi
point. I my s . It is
do not hypothesi apparent
connect s-I that I
my discuss, have
evidence analyze, gone
to my and draw above
hypothesi inference and
s s from my beyond to
results use my
and own

6
 include independ
visual ent
represent research
ations of or
my data connect it
with
other
work
from
outside
sources.

Reasonin My My My My
g reasoning reasoning reasoning reasoning
Advanced is absent, is / shows
4 flawed, or inconsiste inference expertise
incorrect. nt and s show and deep
seems to knowledg knowledg
show a e and e and
lack of understa understa
understa nding of nding of
nding of the topic. the topic
the big Any of study..
idea. sources of Sources
error are of error
clearly are
outlined- addressed
when and ways
relevant. to
eliminate
them are
suggested
.

Scientific I use little My use of I use My use of

Voice or no scientific scientific clear
Advanced scientific vocabular vocabular scientific
4 vocabular y is y and vocabular
y or limited voice (3rd y and
utilize a and may person) to sound
scientific or may support technical
voice. Im not use a my voice
missing strong writings would
multiple scientific credibility allow
sections voice to . My lab reader to
of the lab support report is repeat the
report. my organized procedur
writing. I into the e if

7
 may have required needed.
incomplet sections. All
e work in sections
one of the are
required thoroughl
sections. y
complete
d.

Comments:
4 See Screencastify folder that is shared with you on drive for Audio Feedback.