Conclusion
Earlier in the lab the hypothesis stated was if the color of light given to the plants was changed then the photosynthetic rate of the plants would increase or decrease depending on the shade. We said that the plant given blue light would photosynthesize more because blue is more easily dispersed making the light easier to use for photosynthesis. To measure the rate of photosynthesis we used the mass of the plants to determine if the plants were photosynthesizing more or less. As seen in the data by day three the plant given the color red lost much of its mass, almost 13 g’s. White also lost a lot of mass, losing almost 25 g’s. While yellow lost 4 g’s, green lost 3 g’s. However the only plant to gain mass by day three was the plant given blue which gained almost 10 g’s, which helps prove our hypothesis. The only plant to grow over the three days was blue. All the other plants lost mass which shows that the blue lights were more easily dispersed and were more easily used for photosynthesis increasing the rate. Then over the course of eight days all the other plants lost significant amounts of weight, in most cases around 20 g’s, however blue was the only one to retain the mass that it gained. This shows that the plant given blue light was able to use the shorter blue light waves to maintain its photosynthetic rate which shows how blue light is the best for photosynthesis.
In the lab there could have been a few things that could affect the results and that could be improved on. One thing that could be improved was the amount of water given to the plants, over the course of the three days each of the plants were given 20 mL of water then after day three they were not given water for the weekend which would explain the significant drop in most of the plants. The amount of water given is a problem because it was not consistent for every day, also because it might not have been enough water or not given frequent enough to warrant much growth in the plants. This could be fixed by either increasing the amount of water given or just giving them water more frequently. Another thing wrong with the lab was the fact that data was not recorded for days 4 or 5 because they were over a weekend were none of the group members could record data. Since the data is missing part the validity of the experiment is affected and it creates an uncertainty in the data between days 3 and 6.
In the lab there could have been a few things that could affect the results and that could be improved on. One thing that could be improved was the amount of water given to the plants, over the course of the three days each of the plants were given 20 mL of water then after day three they were not given water for the weekend which would explain the significant drop in most of the plants. The amount of water given is a problem because it was not consistent for every day, also because it might not have been enough water or not given frequent enough to warrant much growth in the plants. This could be fixed by either increasing the amount of water given or just giving them water more frequently. Another thing wrong with the lab was the fact that data was not recorded for days 4 or 5 because they were over a weekend were none of the group members could record data. Since the data is missing part the validity of the experiment is affected and it creates an uncertainty in the data between days 3 and 6.