Slides be used to place the cry nail varnish that I have removed from the leafs, and place it on the slide, then place it under the microscope.
I believe that using these apparatus will give me the most relevant and relievable results to prove my prediction right.
To investigate this you take 8 leaves from the Hedera, all from the same plant, if different areas, so you take 8 leaves from the top and 8 leave from the bass of the plant. Cover the bottom of the leaf with clear nail varnish. This is so that you get a copy of the underside of the leaf, so you are able to see the stomata. Allow the nail varnish to dry so you get a clear copy of the leaf. Peal of the layer of nail varnish and place of a slide, then place the slide under the microscope, turn the lamp on under the microscope to allow more light. Then using the smallest magnification, focus the microscope till you can see the slide clearly. Then you zoom in to a higher magnification to be able to count the amount of stomata in that area of view, then once done that repeat it 6 six’s on each leaf as to get an average amount. You do for each leaf. Then once counted the amount then you average the 6 reading on each leaf, so you have 8 average readings from the bass and 8 from the top, then using the Mann-Whitney U test to show if my hypothesis is right or wrong.
I did a preliminary test before my main investigation to the above method which I found worded well and give me relievable results that followed the information that I had found out, this shows that to the main investigation I would not have to change my method. I did a smaller test which I used two leafs from the top and bass of the plant and I found that in a 1mm² the leafs from the top had more density of stomata, compared to the bass, this is what i found out:
Due the results that I got in my preliminary there no need to make any changes to my main investigation.
The controlled things with in this investigation are that the leafs are of the same plant, they are all around the same size, the cover of the nail varnish will be the same, along with the same nail varnish being used. Also the same magnification to view the slide will be the same. The only things that will change in my investigation are the leaves and there may be a small change in leaf size between them.
Safely
Nail Varnish will have to be used in a well ventilated room, as due to the smell and chemical in the nail varnish can cause problem from me along with people around me. Formaldehyde which causes the smell with nail varnish, and is toxic if breathed in at high concentrations can irritate the eyes, and can cause headaches, a burning sensation in the throat as well as aggravating asthma symptoms. So being in a well ventilated room could lower the risk of this happening. Using a lamp which can become very hot, and burn, so have to be careful in not touching the light bulb, or anyone else touching it, as it well burn. The leaves with be cover in nail varnish, watch people touching there leaves as the nail varnish can get into the skin, if not dry.
The reasons behind why there be a greater stomata density at the top of the plant against the bass of the plant, it because of transpiration, that because the plant wants to get water and other compounds up the plant, and the only way that a plant can do this is by losing water at the top of the plant so water can be drawn up from the bass, so having more stomata density at the top so more water can be lost in order from water to move up the plant. This is the same for the bass of the plant as it does not want to lose a lot of water at the bass, so has smaller stomata density, the plant still needs stomata at the bass as compounds need to move in and out of the plant. Water leafing the leafs creates a transpiration pull, pull is created through water surface tension within the plant cells, the draw of water upwards is assisted by the movement of water into the roots via osmosis it is also assists the plant in absorbing nutrients from the soil as soluble salts. So there would be a greater stomata density at the top of the plant because it will allow the plant to have a transpiration pull.
Implementing
Stomata density at the bass 1mm²
Stomata density at the top 1mm²
Mann – Whitney U test
H0 – there is no significant difference between top and bass
H1 – there is a significant difference between top and bass
So bass score 8+8+8+8+8+8+8+8= 64
Top of plant
So top score is 0
U-value is 0
Critical value for two simples of 8 is 13 at 5% level of significance, so U-value is 0, so I accept H 1 and reject H0 and conclude that there is a significant difference between the two sites.
Method
To investigate this you take 8 leaves from the Hedera, all from the same plant, if different areas, so you take 8 leaves from the top and 8 leave from the bass of the plant. Cover the bottom of the leaf with clear nail varnish. This is so that you get a copy of the underside of the leaf, so you are able to see the stomata. Allow the nail varnish to dry so you get a clear copy of the leaf. Peal of the layer of nail varnish and place of a slide, then place the slide under the microscope, turn the lamp on under the microscope to allow more light. Then using the smallest magnification, focus the microscope till you can see the slide clearly. Then you zoom in to a higher magnification to be able to count the amount of stomata in that area of view, then once done that repeat it 6 six’s on each leaf as to get an average amount. You do for each leaf. Then once counted the amount then you average the 6 reading on each leaf, so you have 8 average readings from the bass and 8 from the top, then using the Mann-Whitney U test to show if my hypothesis is right or wrong.
This is the same as before as my preliminary showed me that this is the best way to do this investigation, so there no need to change it.
The variables that will be controlled are where the leafs are from, as they are from the same area with 8 from the top and 8 from the bass of the plant, I will also plants that are around the same size, as no to leafs is the same there will be a variation in size, but not a significant one that it will affect my results. The only thing that will be hard to control is when I take the reading from as they will not be from the same place on each leaf, due the number of factors like when removing the nail varnish from the leaf is my tear and be damaged, though I will not take readings from torn or damaged nail varnish as it will affect results, it will be hard not to go through the investigation and not tearing one part of the nail varnish so this will limit my results, also due to the leafs being removed from the plant, some of the stomata will close up and may not be counted due to this.
Analyzing
My results show that here is a difference in stomata density in Hedera up a wall. They show that the top and bass of the plant have a difference between them. They show that at the top of the plant the leafs have a greater stomata density then the bass, which show that as you move up the plant the stomata density will become greater. This sis due to the fact that because of transpiration, when the plant wants to move water and other compounds up the plant, but can’t do this unless it loses water at the top, so it want to create a transpiration pull up the plant, so if you have more stomata at the top of the plant, then it will lose more water, and at the sometime pull more water up the pant.
This graph shows that the average stomata density at top is greater than at the bass of the plant. Therefore it proves my Hypothesis right that there is a difference between the two sites, and therefore I can reject my other Hypothesis that there is no difference. There are no real trends or patterns in my data, apart from the fact that by results are close together, that is that the reading from the bass or of the plant are close together and again the top of the plants readings are close together, and that there is no big jump in both set of data, of stomata density. There was only one reading that was a big of the rest, and that was at the leafs at the top of the plant on leaf 2 at reading 3 when the stomata density was 27 compared to all other that where from 18- 22, this show that this area was a highly density area from stomata, of that a tiny movement of the slide showed me more stomata then I was original looking at.
Discussion and evaluation
This investigation did prove my Hypothesis right that there will be a difference between stomata density of the two sites, and therefore I believe that my results are relievable for my investigation, but to say that thing investigation prove theory right, has to be looked at, yes it does on this small scale investigation, that there will be more stomata at the top then the bass because of transpiration and the affect that is has on plant, that in order for the plant to get water anywhere in the plant it must lose water there first via the stomata, so at the bass it will lose water to move water and other compounds to then leafs, the water does not have to travel fear, so less water is lost and therefore the plant will have less stomata at the bass, whereas at the top the water has to travel a greater distance, so more water has to be lost to move water up to the top, and as well as other parts of the plant fighting for water to, the top must lose more water than other parts of the plant to get water pushed up the plant as well as other compounds. So to have more stomata both become a disadvantage and an advantage to the plant, yes it loses more water, but then that water get replace by water being pushed up the plant, so it become a necessary evil to the plant. My results do show this as they show there is a greater stomata density at the top then the bass. But to look at this investigation to show this will need further looking into, as to really show that there is a difference you would need to look at more sites, say look at the difference as you move up the plant, you could look at the bass middle and top, or even more sites on the plant, as well as looking at more the one Hedera to see if it wasn’t only this one plant that was like it, to see if they are all like it. My results are reliable to my investigation as it shows that there is a difference in stomata density, and prove my prediction right. There are limitations on the test, the number of results, the number of sites look at, the microscope used as there are more powerful microscope that would not only make a better picture, but I could been look at the whole leaf to gain a better look at the stomata density, the number of reading though the number I could where a good size, the more you have the better and more relievable your results are, then it will also give a better picture of stomata density, the sites used, the more sites you used a better look at the changes in density you get as you go up the plant. Things like this could be done in further investigation, you know what you going to get, so if you was to look at more plants and sites on the plants, as you can look at the changes and you can discus more, you can’t tell from this investigation if it is the same for all Hedera that stomata density is like this, it is likely that it is because of how the plant works and transpiration, but you can’t rule out a difference like that. Then also if you two different plant then you can compared the results of the both of them, and this will give a more insight into stomata density of Hedera. Therefore I believe that my result and what I found out is relievable and precise, in my investigation to prove my Hypothesis right and that show there is a different in stomata density over two different sites.
