Project Advisor(s)

Dr. Bohdan Dziadyk

Presentation Type

Poster Presentation

Disciplines

Biology | Botany | Plant Biology

Description, Abstract, or Artist's Statement

The Wisconsin Fast Plant, Brassica rapa (Brassicaceae) seeds were planted in three, six-celled containers and were filled with standard potting soil under continuous grow-lux lighting. After the first week of plant growth, E1and E2 were placed in a separate trays and given 1.0 and 1.5x the recommended amount of Miracle-Gro formula, respectively. The control was left in tap water and all were kept in 1 cm of solution. Every seven days the plants’ heights were recorded, and the total number of flowers were counted. By the fourth week, the average height of the control plants was 105.7 mm, of the E1 plants was 83.9 mm, and of the E2 was 60.5 mm. The t-test for the height of control vs. E1 was significant with p=0.023 and the control vs. E2 was significant with p=5.63e-5. The heights between E1 and E2 was significant with p=0.003. During week four, the average number of flowers for control, E1 and E2 were 9, 8 and 7 respectively. This data proved our hypothesis was not supported; we thought that the recommended rate would work the best, but the control group was the healthiest with the highest average growth. We believe that the control fast plants will continue to grow better than the experimental plants because of the trend observed after the conclusion of the experiment.

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Share

COinS
 

Effect of Different Miracle-Gro Concentrations on the Growth of Wisconsin Fast Plants

The Wisconsin Fast Plant, Brassica rapa (Brassicaceae) seeds were planted in three, six-celled containers and were filled with standard potting soil under continuous grow-lux lighting. After the first week of plant growth, E1and E2 were placed in a separate trays and given 1.0 and 1.5x the recommended amount of Miracle-Gro formula, respectively. The control was left in tap water and all were kept in 1 cm of solution. Every seven days the plants’ heights were recorded, and the total number of flowers were counted. By the fourth week, the average height of the control plants was 105.7 mm, of the E1 plants was 83.9 mm, and of the E2 was 60.5 mm. The t-test for the height of control vs. E1 was significant with p=0.023 and the control vs. E2 was significant with p=5.63e-5. The heights between E1 and E2 was significant with p=0.003. During week four, the average number of flowers for control, E1 and E2 were 9, 8 and 7 respectively. This data proved our hypothesis was not supported; we thought that the recommended rate would work the best, but the control group was the healthiest with the highest average growth. We believe that the control fast plants will continue to grow better than the experimental plants because of the trend observed after the conclusion of the experiment.