Week 10

The outside experiments did better than those inside like I had expected, but the bulbs in the greenhouse and cold treatment surprised me in some ways. The experiments outside were more successful than those inside. Both the light and the etiolation treatments had greater dry and wet weights, length of shoots, and diameter of bulbs than the groups inside. The bulbs in the greenhouse surprised me in their success insofar as they had strong root systems and good growth. Many of the bulbs did rot away, which I believe was due to the heat. The cold treatment did better than I expected, but many of the bulbs did not have strong root systems and some did rot. Not surprisingly, all of the bulbs in the heat treatment rotted. There was no significant growth and no root development at all in those experiments.

The height of the tulips in the etiolation experiments was significantly longer than those of their counterparts because they were stretching out in search of light. The bulbs of the etiolation treatments generally weighed more than their counterparts because there was not enough time for the tulips that were exposed to light to really get photosynthesizing. In the twelfth week, all of the light experiment shoots were just barely poking out of the sand. Given time, I believe that the etiolation experiments growth in weight would have plateaued while their counterparts would have continued to climb.

The average diameter of the bulbs in the twelfth week was about the same and in some cases slightly less than the diameter recorded in the sixth and seventh weeks. I believe this was because of the fungicide treatment that was applied in the ninth week killed the mold that had been feeding on the outer scales of the bulbs. When I was rinsing the bulbs for the last wet weight, as soon as many bulbs touched the water many of their previously moldy scales fell into the water.

If I could do anything different with this experiment, for one thing I would have started sooner. When I planted the bulbs February 14th, part of me did not believe that the tulips would even grow because they had been planted so late. Another thing I would do differently is I would continue the experiment until all of the tulips had flowered and the foliage had died. I believe that would have been a more accurate way of doing the experiment, but my time was limited. I would have set the cold growth chamber about ten or twenty degrees Fahrenheit cooler, and the warm growth chamber about ten degrees cooler as well. For the experiments in the growth chambers and the greenhouse, the soil temperature was that of the air temperature because they had not been heeled in. Although I recorded the air temperature for the treatments outside, I wish that I had also recorded the soil temperature. I also would have gotten another group of bulbs in the beginning of the experiment and taken their dry weight as a control.





Outside treatment exposed to light.

Outside treatment removed from light.

Greenhouse treatment exposed to light.

Greenhouse treatment removed from light.

Cold treatment exposed to light.

Cold treatment removed from light.

The tulips were dried in order to obtain their dry weight.

The tulips after being dried.

Week 9b

Thursday

April 10, 2008

12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.

This week I recorded the highest and lowest temperatures outside and in the greenhouse.  I also recorded the day length - 6:31 a.m. to 6:56 p.m. - but did not have to adjust the growth chambers because apparently it was the same as the week previous.

Also, as Dr. McFarland was concerned that certain treatments would become too hot because they were covered in black plastic and metal tape, he covered the etiolation experiments that were located outside and in the greenhouse with two layers of white plastic bags.  This was done to keep the experiments cool.

White plastic bags were placed over the etiolation experiment outside to keep it cool.

White plastic bags were placed over the etiolation experiment in the greenhouse to keep it cool.

Week 9a

Tuesday

April 8, 2008

10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

Today the fungicide, which was Benlate by Dupont, was applied.  I was required to wear a lab jacket, goggles, and gloves.  The fungicide was mixed in a gallon jar, but even though the label said it was water-soluble it still required a solute to mix.  Two gallons were prepared.  One was poured into one tub, and the other was poured into another for when the first tub ran out.  The two tubs were placed in the sink.  Each pot was placed in the fungicide for five minutes so that it would be absorbed through the holes in the bottom.  Then the pots were placed in the sink to dry.

It was very exciting to find two of the bulbs had shoots poking through the sand in the outside treatment that was exposed to light, one shoot in the outside etiolation treatment, and one in the greenhouse treatment that was exposed to light.  Because the tulips were starting to emerge, all of the etiolation treatments were wrapped in aluminum tape to keep the light out.

I was required to wear a lab jacket, goggles, and gloves

The pots were dipped in fungicide, then left in the sink to dry.

Tulip shoots had poked through the sand.

Aluminum tape was used to cover all areas that would allow light into the treatment.

Week 8

Friday

April 4, 2008

11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

This week I recorded the highest and lowest temperatures outside and in the greenhouse.  I also recorded the day length - 6:31 a.m. to 6:56 p.m. - and adjusted the light period in the growth chambers accordingly.

Week 7b

Thursday

March 27, 2008

11:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.

I recorded the highest and lowest temperatures for the greenhouse and outside.  I also checked the time of sunrise - 6:30 a.m. - and sunset - 6:45 p.m. - and adjusted the growth chambers accordingly.

Week 7a

Tuesday
March 25, 2008
11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

This week I measured the diameter, length, and weight of the bulbs in the light experiment groups. I went about it the same way the I did in the light exclusion experiment groups.

None of the bulbs from outside had rotted and all of them have roots. Seven of the bulbs had developed a white hairy mold. Nine of the bulbs had a blue mold, which Dr. McFarland told me was penicillin eating off the dead storage leaves of the bulbs. He suggested we apply fungicide in the near future.

One of the bulbs from the greenhouse rotted. The nine remaining had developed roots. Four had a red mold.

Previously, eight of the bulbs from this experiment were found rotted. One of the remaining two had rotted, which left one bulb in this group. It had a red mold, and no roots at all.

Another bulbs from the cold treatment rotted, which makes two total. Six of the bulbs had roots. All three molds I have observed were present in this experiment: four had a red mold, five had a blue mold, and four had the white hairy mold.

Again, I lightly watered each group before returning them to their places.

I did not record the temperature or the day length because it was still early in the week and I wanted to wait until Thursday or Friday.

Week 6

Thursday
March 20, 2008
1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

This week I only had time to check the status of the light exclusion experiments. For each treatment, I recorded how many bulbs had rotted and anything unusual about the bulbs. Then I rinsed the sand off of each bulb and dried them on a paper towel. I measured the diameter and length of each bulb and found the average diameter and length for each group. Then I weighed each group.

I dug up the pot outside and brought it inside so I could observe the bulbs. None of the bulbs outside had rotted, and all of the bulbs had developed thick roots. Six of the bulbs appeared to have the same blue mold that the cold treatment had, and five of the bulbs had developed a white hairy mold. The same blue mold seemed to be in a layer around the bulbs in the bottom of the pot (the bottom 7 cm) but not the upper portion.

None of the bulbs from the greenhouse had rotted, and all but one of the bulbs had developed thick roots. Six of the bulbs were spotted by a red mold. The same red mold seemed to be in a layer around the bulbs in the bottom of the pot (the bottom 7 cm) but not the upper portion.

Seven bulbs from the heat treatment had rotted, and a layer of white mold had formed on surface of the sand. But there was no mold on any of the remaining bulbs, but none had developed any roots. I scrubbed out the pot and changed the sand before replacing the bulbs.

One bulb from the cold treatment group had rotted. Seven of the remaining bulbs had areas covered in a blue mold. The same blue mold seemed to be in a layer around the bulbs in the bottom of the pot (the bottom 7 cm) but not the upper portion. All nine bulbs had short roots.

I lightly watered each of the treatments that I had checked, but none of the four that I had not checked.

I recorded the highest and lowest temperature outside and in the greenhouse for each day the previous week. I then recorded the time the sun rose -6:45 a.m. - and set - 6:45 p.m. (which does not feel correct, but that is what the computer said) - and adjusted the light time for the growth chambers accordingly.

Dr. McFarland explained to me the reason why many of the bulbs had increased in weight and size was because they had absorbed water. He explained that it was not because of carbon, because the bulbs were not photosynthesizing! (they have not yet emerged from the sand) He went on to explain that the plants that will not be exposed to light will not be able to photosynthesize, which I took to mean that their growth will plateau as the plants that are not covered will skyrocket in growth.




The sand was rinsed off the bulbs and the bulbs were placed on a paper towel to dry.

The diameter was measured.

The length was measured.

The weight was measured.

Some bulbs in the cold treatment and the outdoor treatment had a blue mold.

Some bulbs from the greenhouse had a red mold.

Some bulbs from outside had a white hairy mold.

The heat treatment was covered with a layer of white mold.

Week 5

Friday
March 14, 2008
11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

I recorded the highest and lowest daily temperatures for inside the greenhouse and outside for the previous week.

Earlier in the week had been daylight savings time; so the hour had moved forward. I recorded the time that the sun had risen - 7:00 a.m. - and what time the sun had set - 6:30 p.m. - and adjusted the time that the light would turn on and off in the growth chambers accordingly.

None of the tulips had emerged from the sand, so a pot was selected to check the status of the bulbs. The experiment of heat and light's effect on the growth of the tulip bulbs was selected. The sand was gently shoveled out and sifted through. It was discovered that all but two of the bulbs had rotted, and the two remaining bulbs did not seem to have grown any roots at all. This being very disappointing, the experiment that tested the effect of cold temperatures on the tulip bulbs was then sifted through in the hopes that not all of the experiments had not rotted. It was exciting to find that not only had eight out of the ten bulbs in that test had not rotted, but many of them had developed roots. The rotted bulbs from both tests were discarded, and the remaining bulbs were replaced on 5 cm of sand with the rest of the sand poured on top to fill the pots.


The sand was sifted through to find the bulbs.

Only two bulbs from the heat and light experiment remained.

A rotted bulb.

8 of the 10 bulbs in the cold and light experiment remained.

Many bulbs from the cold treatment had developed roots.

Week 4

Friday
March 7, 2008
12:00 p.m. - 12:30 p.m.

I recorded the highest and lowest daily temperatures for inside the greenhouse and outside for the previous week.

I recorded the time that the sun had risen - 6:30 a.m. - and what time the sun had set - 7:30 p.m. - and adjusted the time that the light would turn on and off in the growth chambers accordingly.

I then watered all of the pots except the experiments outside, as it was raining.

Week 3

Thursday
February 28, 2008
12:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m.

First, I checked the record of the highest and lowest temperature of every day for the past week for inside the greenhouse and the area just outside.

Dr. McFarland suggested I attach an empty pot to the top of the experiments of etiolation so when the time comes to place a cover on them, the plants will still have room to grow. Three holes were punched in the rims of the pots, and then they were attached with twine.

Last I checked what time the sun had been rising - 6:30 a.m. - and setting - 7:00 p.m. I used that information to set the time the plants in the growth chamber would experience light and dark.


Computer that records temperatures outside and in greenhouse, and also records time of sunrise and sunset.

How the etiolation experiments were set up.

The control panel for the growth chamber that contains the heat experiment.

The control panel for the growth chamber that contains to cold temperature experiment.

Week 2

Thursday

February 21, 2008

12:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.

I began be re-weighing each group after realizing that I had forgotten to zero the scale when I was weighing them the previous week. Then I numbered each group according to weight.

Group 1: 214.5 g

Group 2: 213.1 g

Group 3: 213.1 g

Group 4: 213.0 g

Group 5: 212.0 g

Group 6: 211.3 g

Group 7: 211.3 g

Group 8: 211.0 g

I then washed out eight pots, and covered the holes on the bottom with three layers of wet paper towels. This would prevent sand from leaking out through the holes. Next I added 5 cm of sand to the pots, then arranged ten bulbs on the sand. After that, I added fifteen more cm of sand on top of that, so the pot would measure 20 cm of sand. Then the pots were watered until water dripped out the bottom.

Next I labeled each pot according to the treatment that it would receive and dated the label with today's date. Group one would be placed outside and would receive light. Group two would be placed outside, but would not be able to receive light. Group three would be placed in the greenhouse and would receive light. Group four would also be placed in the greenhouse but would not be able to receive light. Group five would be placed in heat would would be able to receive light. Group six would be placed in heat but would not be able to receive light. Group seven would be given a cold treatment, but would be able to receive light. Group eight would be given a cold treatment and would not be able to receive light.

Groups one and two were placed outside, but were not heeled in to the soil yet or covered from light for the sake of time. Groups three and four were placed on a bench in the greenhouse, but were not covered from light yet. Groups five and six were placed on a heat pad set to 90 degrees Fahrenheit, but were not covered from light yet. Group seven was placed in a lighted cold chamber that was set to 50 degrees Fahrenheit, and Group eight was placed into an unlit cold chamber at the same temperature.

I hypothesized that the groups that were outside would be the most successful, and that the plants in the growth chamber would be least successful. I thought this because in the past, the bulbs that I plant outside come back every year, while the plants I keep inside might have a small flower; then after flowering, the bulb will rot. I was not sure what to expect from the bulbs in the greenhouse, but I did not expect them to be as successful as the bulbs outside because of the significantly warmer temperature. I hypothesized that the plants that were exposed to light would be more successful than the plants that are not exposed to light, based on the common knowledge that plants require light for photosynthesis, and photosynthesis is essential for the success of the plant.

The kind of pot that contain the experiments.

Damp paper towel was placed along the bottom of the pots to prevent sand from flowing out the drainage holes.

The sand used for the experiments.

The pots were filled with sand up to 5 cm.

10 bulbs were then placed on the 5 cm of sand, and then were covered with more sand until the pot was completely filled.

There were 8 tests with 10 bulbs in each test.