Experiment Testing the Effect of Saline on Plants Lab Report

Pages: 10 (2190 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 0  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Environmental Science


[. . .] 4cm and 0.9cm respectively. Experiment 1 received a single packet of salt per week, while Experiment 2 received four packets of salt per week. As argued by Hamada et al. (2016), it is obvious that the amount of salt received played a significant role.

With every subsequent measurement, the difference becomes clearer. While the control has a clearly increasing rising growth, Experiments 1 and 2 have growth that is inhibited. The control growth rate after the six weeks was at an average of 1.78, and all through the growth rate was increasingly rising as shown in Table 2. After the six months, the control has a clear growth rate that, when plotted in Figure 1, shows a clear sigmoid curve, which is an indication of clear growth. While there is a slowed growth on the third week, that is attributed to the shock experienced during the transplanting process.

On the other hand, Experiment 1, which received one packet of salt per week seems to have a normal growth, even though reduced, for the first three weeks. Compared to the control, Experiment 1 has reduced growth, as the plant has a shorter length. The plant in Experiment 1 has a growth rate of 1.08 as indicated in Table 2. Even though there is positive growth, the rate of growth is increasingly on the decline. This is consistent with what is argued by Shrivastava & Kumar (2015) that the salinity level affects the plant growth differently. The reduced growth can be attributed to the fact that only a single packet of salt was used. This growth rate, a seemingly normal growth, is affected by the fourth week as the growth curve, seen in Figure 1, has a reduced gradient, which distorts it from what would be expected to be a healthy S-shaped growth curve.

Experiment 2 received four packets of salt. The plant in Experiment 2 had a significantly reduced growth. The growth rate for the plant was an average of 0.2cm per week, for only five weeks. By the sixth week, the plant had died, after a -0.7 growth as shown in Table 2. The negative growth can be attributed to withering as a result of the constrained ability to generate energy to sustain not only the plant’s growth but also the firm and upright structure of the plant; this constraint resulted in the flaccid structure of the plant. In Figure 1, the growth curve of the plant is completely divergent from the normal shape of the standard sigmoid curve. After the first three weeks, the plant maintains constant growth rate, but then decreases, with an incessantly decreasing growth rate of 0.2cm. After the fifth week, this plant died, which is consistent with the argument by Shrivastava & Kumar (2015) and Paul (2012) that increased salt stress eventually and inevitably leads to the death of the plant.

The three pots were watered using distilled water. Distilled water contains no minerals; therefore, it can be argued that the three various experiments had the same conditions for no extra foreign minerals were introduced through the water used for irrigation. Additionally, the soil used in the pots was all standard. The soil was provided as a single packet by the university and distributed among the three pots. The three experiments as a result received standard nutrients from the soil. For this experiment, the use of distilled water and a uniform soil was important as it helped to standardize the conditions of the experiment and eradicate or rather minimize uncontrolled variability.


The only condition which was changed for the plants was the amount of salt they received. The control experiment received zero salt, Experiment 1 a single packet of salt, and Experiment 2 received four packets of salt per week. These different salt amounts are relatable to the different growth rates for the three plants. The control, with no salt, had an average growth rate of 1.78cm per week, which increased steadily and had a growth curve with a standard S-shape. Experiment 1, which received one packet of salt per week, had an average growth rate of 1.08cm per week that was… [END OF PREVIEW]

Four Different Ordering Options:


Compare the Four Ordering Options

  1. 1.Buy this paper with your credit card or cash balance at PayPal.  Within 10 hours, we'll send the Microsoft Word file to the email address on your PayPal account.
  2. 2.Same as #1, but we will also remove the paper from our site for 30 days!
  3. 3.Need this paper immediately?  Want to individually download any of our 175,000+ exclusive, private, non-plagiarized papers for 30 days?  It takes only 2 minutes to subscribe and get instant access!
  4. 4.One of our highly experienced experts will write a brand new, 100% unique paper matching the exact specifications and topic that you provide!  You'll be the only person on the planet to receive the one-of-a-kind paper that we write for you!  Use code "Save10" to save 10% on your 1st order!

1.  Buy the full, 10-page paper:  $24.68


2.  Buy & remove for 30 days:  $38.47


3.  Monthly access to 175,000 papers

After paying, this link will download any paper(s).


4.  Let us write a NEW paper for you!

Ask Us to Write a New Paper
Most popular!

Plants Make Life on Earth Essay

Testing for Honesty the Housing Allowance Research Proposal

Testing vs. Alternative Forms of Assessment Term Paper

Animal Testing There Are Individuals and Organizations Research Paper

Animal Testing There Has Been Heated Debates Essay

View 1,000+ other related papers  >>

Cite This Lab Report:

APA Format

Experiment Testing the Effect of Saline on Plants.  (2017, November 23).  Retrieved January 19, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/experiment-testing-effect-saline-plants/4100043

MLA Format

"Experiment Testing the Effect of Saline on Plants."  23 November 2017.  Web.  19 January 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/experiment-testing-effect-saline-plants/4100043>.

Chicago Format

"Experiment Testing the Effect of Saline on Plants."  Essaytown.com.  November 23, 2017.  Accessed January 19, 2019.