Rubric – Leaf Stomata Lab Report (40 Points Total) Introduction (2 paragraphs, 8--‐10 sentences) 1. Two or three sentences linking leaf stomata and their function with the interesting ecology learned in this lab (i.e., plant adaptations for water conservation or effects of global climate change) (4 pts.). 2. One or two sentences describing the specific question that is the subject of the report and linking this question in some way to the function of stomata or trade--‐offs in photosynthesis and water conservation (2 pts.). 3. Following three sentences: a. Study’s Hypothesis – from your handwritten research proposal. (1 pt.) b. Prediction (what you expected to find based on your hypothesis and study design) (2 pt.) c. Null hypothesis (1 pt.). Section Total (10 pt.) Materials and Methods (short paragraph, 5--‐7 sentences) 1. One--‐two sentences describing field data collection methods. Clearly indicate plant species (or treatments – what comprised plant A and plant B), and where you collected specimens -­‐ be specific. (2 pt.). 2. A brief sentence describing the experimental design (what you collected under what conditions) and how the approach was set up to test the hypothesis. (2 pt.). 3. Following three to four sentences: a. Brief description of lab methods. Items to include: slide/leaf preparation, microscope work, how you calculated the density of leaf stomata. (2 pts.) b. Brief sentence(s) describing the statistical analysis (2 pt.) 4. This section should be written as a narrative in active voice (not like a recipe), and should be entirely in past tense (describing what you did). (2 pts.) Section Total (10 pt.) Results (short paragraph, 2--‐3 sentences) Describe the results of your study, while avoiding extra interpretation of your findings (this happens in the next section, the Discussion). Be sure to: a. Indicate the mean values of stomata density for each of your conditions (A and B)(2 pt.). b. Indicate whether results were significant or not, including a p--‐value. (2 pt.) c. Reference your figure in the text (1 pt.) Section Total (5 pt.) Discussion (1--‐2 paragraphs, 5--‐7 sentences) Interpret the results of your study in the context of your original hypothesis and predictions: a. Indicate whether you rejected or failed to reject the null hypothesis based on your statistical analysis (2 pt.). b. Indicate whether your results supported your hypothesis (2 pt.). c. Interpret your findings in light of your original prediction: Did your findings support (or not) your prediction? Why or why not? (2 pts.) d. Include a brief discussion of how your findings fit into the bigger picture, include, if appropriate, suggestions for further research (2 pts.). Section Total (8 pt.) Figure Your results figure should clearly display: a. Mean values of each condition (1 pt.). b. Standard error bars (1 pt.). c. Relabeling of the conditions on the horizontal axis (1 pt.). d. Concise figure description that should indicate what the figure is displaying: mean and standard error of stomata density under… (describe conditions A and B). The figure description should be correctly labeled as it is referenced in the text of the results section (e.g., “Figure 1”) (1 pt.). Section Total (4 pt.) Mechanics Overall, your research report should be well--‐edited and written in an appropriate tone: a. Paper contained few spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors (2 pt.) b. Paper was written in a tone appropriate for a research report (not overly anecdotal or informal (1 pt.) Section Total (3 pt.) Stomata Lab Report Stomata is composed of two guard cells when under a light microscope looking like a smaller oval inside of a bigger oval. Stomata grow depends on the environment of the plant. Depending on conditions such as the level of carbon dioxide, and moisture causing higher density. Stomata respond to conditions by opening and closing reacting to how much light there is. We propose to investigate the effects of stomata under sunlight on leaf stomata density in Ligustrum ovalifolium (Garden Privet). We hypothesize that stomatal density will be higher because of the higher sunlight exposure. Stomata should be greater because it will adapt to the sunlight environment and create a denser stomata to be able to ventilate to regulate the plants temperature and avoid overheating. The null hypothesis would be that there is no significant difference between the amount of stomata on a leaf that has high sun exposure and a leaf that is in the shade. The location of our plant was next to Annenberg Science Complex Wing B. We collected 24 mature leaves. 12 of the leaves received water and were under high sun exposure (bottom leaves were taken), the other 12 received the same amount of water BUT they were in the shade (bottom leaves were taken). In the lab we took the impression of the stomata by putting nail polish on the lower part of the leaf and then we used a piece of tape to get the actual impression. We were able to fit 3 impressions per slide and we ended with a total of 8 slides. The slides were placed in the magnifier and we started looking at the stomata at x10 magnification, then we increased to x40 magnification, and we were able to count the stomata at x400 magnification. We counted the amount of stomata per each impression and we calculated the average, standard deviation, and the P-value. The results of our study showed that the stomata leaf density of our sun exposed leaves were higher than the stomata density of leaves under shade conditions. We measured the stomata density by finding the average of each group of leaves and our results indicated that the average leaf stomatal density for the sun exposed group was 135.9375 and the average leaf stomatal density for the leaves in shade conditions was 123.9583333. This proved our hypothesis right since we initially predicted that leaves with a higher sun exposure would have a higher density of stomata and according to our study this turned out to be true. Based on our results we failed to reject our null hypothesis since our statistical analysis indicated that the leaves under sun exposure had a much higher stomatal count compared to the leaves that were collected from a shaded environment, our P value was 0.1929, which implies that our confident level is 81%. Our study showed us the pattern that we were expecting to see. When we finished counting the amount of stomata in each leaf for each type of environment we noticed the quantitative difference in each group of leaves. Our findings helped us to see how life around is constantly adapting to its environment, even if it’s something we can’t see with our naked eye like the difference in stomata that plants have. This connects to the food we eat, like fruits and vegetables, and how them adapting to their environments benefits us so that we can survive. Figure 1 documents the stomata count of each of the leaves collected from both the high sunlight and low sunlight (shade) environments. Figure 2 shows the mean and standard error of stomata density under high sunlight exposure versus stomata density under low sunlight exposure (shade).    Stomata Lab Report Commented  [PT1]:  Make  sure  create  titles  for  each   paragraph,  such  as  Introduction  or  Results.   Stomata is composed of two guard cells when under a light microscope looking like a smaller oval inside of a bigger oval. Stomata grow depends on the environment of the plant. Depending on conditions such as the level of carbon dioxide, and moisture causing higher density. Stomata respond to conditions by opening and closing reacting to how much light there is. We propose to investigate the effects of stomata under sunlight on leaf stomata density in Ligustrum ovalifolium (Garden Privet). We hypothesize that stomatal density will be higher because of the higher sunlight exposure. Stomata should be greater because it will adapt to the sunlight environment and create a denser stomata to be able to ventilate to regulate the plants temperature and avoid overheating. The null hypothesis would be that there is no significant difference between the number of stomata on a leaf that has high sun exposure and a leaf that is in the shade. The location of our plant was next to Annenberg Science Complex Wing B. We collected 24 mature leaves. 12 of the leaves received water and were under high sun exposure (bottom leaves were taken), the other 12 received the same amount of water BUT they were in the shade (bottom leaves were taken). In the lab we took the impression of the stomata by putting nail polish on the lower part of the leaf and then we used a piece of tape to get the actual impression. We were able to fit 3 impressions per slide and we ended with a total of 8 slides. The slides were placed in the magnifier and we started looking at the stomata at x10 magnification, then we increased to x40 magnification, and we were able to count the stomata at x400 magnification. We counted the number of stomata per each impression and we calculated the average, standard deviation, and the P-value.   Commented  [PT2]:  You  should  add  more  details   linking  leaf  stomata  and  their  function  with  the  interesting   ecology  learned  in  this  lab.   Commented  [PT3]:  You  should  add  one  or  two   sentences  describing  the  specific  question  that  is  the   subject  of  the  report  and  linking  this  question  in  some   way  to  the  function  of  stomata  or  trade-­-­-­‐‑offs  in   photosynthesis  and  water  conservation.   Commented  [PT4]:  Maybe  you  should  say,  stomata   density  will  be  higher  for  leaves  that  are  exposed  to   sun?   Commented  [PT5]:  Statistically  significant        The results of our study showed that the stomata density of our sun exposed leaves were higher than the stomata density of leaves under shade conditions. We measured the stomata Commented  [PT6]:  average   Commented  [PT7]:  average   density by finding the average of each group of leaves and our results indicated that the average leaf stomatal density for the sun exposed group was 135.9375 and the average leaf stomatal density for the leaves in shade conditions was 123.9583333. This proved our hypothesis right since we initially predicted that leaves with a higher sun exposure would have a higher density of stomata and according to our study this turned out to be true. Based on our results we failed to reject our null hypothesis since our statistical analysis Commented  [PT8]:  Not  really!  Even  though  on   average  sun  exposed  leaves  had  higher  stomata   density,  the  difference  is  not  statistically  significant.  So,   your  hypothesis  was  falsified!     indicated that the leaves under sun exposure had a much higher stomatal count compared to the leaves that were collected from a shaded environment, our P value was 0.1929, which implies that our confident level is 81%. Our study showed us the pattern that we were expecting to see. When we finished counting the number of stomata in each leaf for each type of environment we noticed the quantitative difference in each group of leaves. Our findings helped us to see how life around is constantly adapting to its environment, even if it’s something we can’t see with our naked eye like the difference in stomata that plants have. This connects to the food we eat, like fruits and vegetables, and how them adapting to their environments benefits us so that we can survive.     Commented  [PT9]:  Not  true!  You  should  reject  your   original  hypothesis  because  you  failed  to  reject  your   null  hypothesis.            Figure 1 documents the stomata count of each of the leaves collected from both the high sunlight and low sunlight (shade) environments.       Figure 2 shows the mean and standard error of stomata density under high sunlight exposure versus stomata density under low sunlight exposure (shade).   
Purchase answer to see full attachment