Stomata Lab Report

During those high-carbon-dioxide times, lands with fewer stomata will have an advantage and will be common. On the other hand, when carbon dioxide levels are low, plants need many stomata in order to scrape together enough carbon dioxide to survive. During low-carbon- dioxide times, plants with more stomata will have an advantage and will be common. (Understanding Evolution) Therefore, the question to be tested will be if you count the number of stomata of the same species of leaf at different stages of life will the number of stomata be different?

My hypothesis is if we count the number of leaf stomata at three different stages of life then the umber of stomata will be less as the leaf gets older because the leaf is dying.

(Understanding Evolution) Procedure Approximately three leaves of the where gathered to use in this experiment. Each leaf was at a different stage of life: alive, dying, and dead. A thin cast of a tiny part of the surface of the underside of each leaf was created using NYC clear nail polish.

The imprint of each leafs underside was viewed one at a time under a light microscope using the cast, which was carefully removed from each leaf with a piece of packing tape. The stomata were completely visible and were able o be counted under the lowest view setting of xx. The stomata of each leaf were observed and counted four times. When viewing the stomata in each leaf for detail, the setting of xx was used.

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified

Proficient in: Experiment

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

This made the view of the stomata large enough to tell whether they were open or not. The number and description of the stomata of each leaf was recorded.

Stomata Experiment

The leaf that was alive had an average of 34. 5 stomata counted in the one specific area observed, the dying leaf had an average of 31. 75 stomata in the area observed and the dead leaf had an average of 29. 25 stomata in the area observed. These averages were results f four different trials in which the stomata were counted and observed in the specified area of each plant, every trial having a new person count the stomata. The stomata of the dead leaf were closed; the stomata of the leaf that was alive were open. The stomata of the leaf that was dying varied.

In some places, the stomata were opened, in others, they were closed. The stomata that were open were bunched in separate areas of the observed section of the leaf, as were the stomata that were closed. Neither of the different stomata were mixed between each other in the dying leaf. All three leaves stomata were scattered around n the observed area and did not have a noticeable pattern to their placing. Conclusion: The data gathered shows that there is, in fact, a difference in the number and the appearance of stomata in three different life stages of an American elm leaf.

However, the differences in the number of stomata are slight, calculating to a difference of only 5. 25 stomata between the largest and smallest average. The leaf that was alive had the greatest number of stomata, followed by the dying leaf and then the dead one, which had the least number of stomata. The numbers of stomata seem to descend as the leaf dies. However, this difference s insignificant considering that the stomata that were counted were a part of a very tiny area of the leaf (smaller than a fraction of a centimeter). The difference of stomata in each leaf came out to only 5. 5, which isn’t a large enough difference in the stomata of a small area of the leaf to be determined as significant. Further investigation would have to be performed in order to test this and get more accurate results. The difference that was significant was that of the appearance of the stomata. In the dead leaf, the stomata were closed; in the leaf that was alive, the stomata were open. The stomata of the dying leaf however, aired. Parts of the section viewed under the microscope consisted of opened stomata, others consisted of closed stomata.

This might be because the leaf wasn’t completely dead, or parts of the leaf were still alive. When something is dying, the working parts of it do not stop functioning completely, they shut down at various times. This explains why some the stomata are open and some were closed. There was no significant difference in the number of stomata between the three leaves; however there was a dramatic difference in the appearance of the stomata in each leaf. If I were to re-do this lab in the future I would make ere to keep my fingers off of the viewing part of the tape.

I think it may have altered our results in the end, like the number of stomata should have been without outliers. Another error that I have discovered was that we used different microscope power for the leaves. We should have used all the same power on each leaf for more accurate results to be sure we were viewing the same amount of area. The data also proves this because for the alive and the dying leaf we used the xx zoom, but we used xx zoom for the dead leaf. I’d infer that we did this because the dead leafs stomata were closed which could have made them harder to see.