Plant transpiration illustrated summary

This is information and data you need

BSC 196 Illustrated Summary Outline Template

Name Michelle Fernandez

Date November 11, 2023

Section 006

Title

A. Title that answers the study question:

Stomata operation has an effect on the transpiration of rate in plants.

Introduction

B. Broad (introduce your topic broadly, grab the attention of the reader): Throughout the process transpiration is affected by the stomata operation changing the rates in plants.

C. Specific (narrow down information and allude to the knowledge gap you seek to address):

Transpiration is the method by which water is lost from a plant within the shape of water vapor through little openings on the plant's surface, fundamentally through the stomata. Stomata are little pores found on the surface of leaves, stems, and other plant organs, and they play a significant part within the exchange of gasses, including water vapor, between the plant and its environment.

Purpose

D. The purpose of this study was to: Find the effect transpiration would have in the rate of plants when the stomata would open and close.

E. We tested the hypothesis that: Closing the stomata would affect the transpiration rates in plants.

F. We predicted: Transpiration would be lower due to the manipulation of the stomata operation.

Result

G. Main result (based on data and statistical analysis)

We found that: We found that adding vaseline to our stomata decreased the rate of transpiration in the plants.

Discussion

H. Does the main result support your prediction (interpret biologically what happened)?

The main result does support our prediction. We predicted that the rates would be lower due to the transpiration rates in the plants. Our results showed the decrease since we added vaseline to the stomata.

I. Main result in a more general context (this is a good place to use the literature; think about other articles you’ve read and ask yourself if your work supports the general consensus or not):

Transpiration is shown to be affected when it comes to the rate of plants. When adding vaseline to the stomata we played with the plant, therefore we received our answer. Adding this substance showed us how quickly it would affect the stomata operation.

J. Importance of result to a broader perspective:

Transpiration gives insights into how plants adjust to their environment, direct inner forms, and connection with environmental frameworks. It highlights the complicated adjustment between water take-up and misfortune, which is significant for the survival, development, and by and large well-being of plants in different environments.

Figure

K. Copy and paste the figure you have created here

Caption

L. Outline of caption contents

• first sentence: Figure 1 Average transpiration rate of plants with vaseline on stomata compared to those without any vaseline.
  
• second sentence: The average transpiration rate of the two groups were not statistically significant. The plants that had vaseline on their stomata compared to the plants that didn’t produced transpiration rates that were nearly the same. Our p-value was higher than expected meaning it was not significant.

Statistics

M. Include the output of your statistical analysis here (report the test statistic [chi-squared or t-value], the degrees of freedom [df], and the p-value):

(Chi- squared Value = 2.1642, Degree of freedom = 6, P value = 0.073.

References in CSE

N. Lab manual reference

1. in-text citation: (Krippel et al. 2023)

1. complete end reference: Byers D, Calhoun C, DiSciullo RA, Sadd B. 2023. BSC 196 Biological Diversity laboratory Manual. Normal (IL): School of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University.

O. Second reference (a scientific article from a peer-reviewed, academic journal)

1. in-text citation: (Trimble, S 2022)

1. complete end reference: Trimble, S. (2022). Transpiration in plants: Its importance and applications. CID Bio-Science. https://cid-inc.com/blog/transpiration-in-plants-i...

Example of how an abstract summary is posed to look

Presence of the invasive brook trout has no effect on survivorship of native Chinook salmon The introduction of non-native species to a novel environment can be highly detrimental to the endemic flora and fauna of the region. This intentional or accidental practice has long been shown to cause lasting harm to the balance of ecosystems and their biodiversity levels (Rahel 2000). Introductions of non-indigenous fish to freshwater systems has been commonplace for years and the displacement of native species has been well documented. Still, in some places, the impacts of such additions have yet to be evaluated (Levin et al. 2002). The Pacific Chinook salmon, for example, is a threatened species found in eastern North America that shares a habitat with the introduced, non-indigenous brook trout. Using this system, we aimed to determine for the first time whether the presence of the brook trout affects the survivorship of the salmon. When comparing data from 12 different streams (six with salmon and trout, six with salmon and no trout), we found that there was no difference in Chinook salmon survivorship rates between the trout-present and trout-absent streams (Figure 1). These data show that, in these streams, the non-native brook trout do not appear to affect the average number of surviving juvenile salmon after one year. While it is often found that alien species outcompete and overrun the endemics, these data suggest that in this region the native and foreign fishes live stably with one another. Further research is warranted to make clear the lasting effects of these relatively new interactions, and how we may use this system as an exemplar for other non-indigenous introductions.

Figure 1 Survivorship of Chinook salmon in streams with compared to streams without brook trout. There is no difference in proportion of surviving salmon in steams with or without trout, thus the invasive trout species does not harm nor help the native species’ likelihood of survival (p=0.374, df=10, t=0.9315). References Levin PS, Achord S, Feist BE, Zabel RW. 2002. Non–indigenous brook trout and the demise of Pacific salmon: a forgotten threat? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B. 269(1501):1663-1670. Rahel FJ. 2000. Homogenization of fish faunas across the United States. Science. 288(5467):854–856.

And lastly what you are supposed to do with the information and the rubric

Please upload here a word document file (.doc or .docx only) of your plant transpiration complete illustrated summary (i.e., a single paragraph summary of no more than 250 words that includes a figure, caption, and statistical analysis along with two references).

INSTRUCTIONS

Rubric

Illustrated Summary Rubric

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTitle	2 pts 2 Informative and communicates the result 1 pts 1 Communicates topic only or miscommunicates the result 0 pts 0 Absent or insufficient	2 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntroduction	4 pts 4 General and specific background 3 pts 3 Minor issue/missing important information 2 pts 2 Only general or only specific topic communicated or statements untrue 1 pts 1 present but insufficient 0 pts 0 Absent	4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePurpose	4 pts 4 Clearly stated what the study is investigating or addressing 3 pts 3 Stated but somewhat unclear or muddled 2 pts 2 Purpose stated is not in fact the purpose of the study 1 pts 1 Information offered but no purpose stated 0 pts 0 Absent	4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResult	4 pts 4 Explicitly stated result as it relates to the purpose/study question and statistics 3 pts 3 Minor issue(s) in statement 2 pts 2 Result stated but not as it relates to the purpose or stats 1 pts 1 Incorrect result stated or result remains unclear 0 pts 0 Absent	4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDiscussion	4 pts 4 Result explained as it relates to what's already known and a general context; broader impacts stated 3 pts 3 Minor issue(s) or something lacking in interpretation of results 2 pts 2 No broader impacts discussed or interpretation too broad with no relation to what is already known/general context 1 pts 1 Statements made but don't relate to results found or they don't offer interpretation 0 pts 0 Absent	4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFigure, Caption, and Stats	4 pts 4 Appropriate figure and clear caption. includes stats parenthetically 3 pts 3 Figure, caption, stats present but improperly formatted or caption lacks appropriate information 2 pts 2 Improper choice or major issues of figure, and/or stats but still includes caption OR stats are incorrect 1 pts 1 Figure, caption, and/or stats missing or have major deficiencies 0 pts 0 Absent	4 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReferences	3 pts 3 2 references and in-text citations in CSE format 2 pts 2 Minor formatting errors 1 pts 1 Only 1 reference or major formatting/applicability error(s)/in-text citation error(s) 0 pts 0 Absent	3 pts
Total Points: 25