Question. Does the wavelength of light affect the rate of
photosynthesis in pond weed?
Hypothesis with a mechanism. Red and blue light will produce a
higher rate of photosynthesis than green light of the same intensity, because
chlorophyll absorbs strongly in the red and blue regions of the spectrum and
reflects or transmits green. Light that is not absorbed by a pigment cannot supply
energy to the light-dependent reactions, so the rate should follow absorption
rather than apparent brightness.
Independent variable. Wavelength of light, set at four levels
using colored filters: red, blue, green, and clear as a comparison condition. Four
levels rather than two, because two points cannot show the shape of a relationship.
Dependent variable. Rate of oxygen production, measured as the
number of bubbles released from the cut stem per minute, counted over five minutes
and divided by five. Counting bubbles is crude, so a better version collects the
gas in an inverted measuring cylinder and records the volume in cubic centimeters
per minute, which avoids the assumption that all bubbles are the same size.
Controlled variables, and why each matters.
Light intensity is the critical one and the place most designs fail. A colored
filter removes some light, so a green filter and a red filter placed at the same
distance from the same lamp do not deliver the same intensity. If intensity is not
equalized the experiment has two variables and becomes uninterpretable, exactly the
confound of lesson 1.2. I would measure the intensity reaching the plant with a
light meter for each filter and adjust the lamp distance until all four readings
match, recording the readings as part of the results.
Temperature must be held constant, because photosynthesis is enzyme-controlled and
the rate rises with temperature up to an optimum. A lamp heats the water, so the
specimen tube sits in a water bath of fixed temperature, with a heat shield of clear
water between lamp and tube, and the temperature is checked at the start and end of
each trial.
Carbon dioxide concentration must be constant and not limiting, since lesson 6.4
establishes that the rate is set by whichever factor is in shortest supply. I would
use the same volume of the same sodium hydrogen carbonate solution for every trial,
at a concentration high enough that carbon dioxide is not the constraint, otherwise
all four filters could give the same rate and the experiment would show nothing.
Also controlled: the species of pond weed, the length and mass of the shoot, the
time allowed to acclimatize before counting begins (five minutes), the volume of
water, and the same freshly cut stem for the whole run.
Method. Cut a 6 cm shoot and place it inverted in a boiling tube
of the carbonate solution in the water bath. Set the lamp at the distance determined
for the first filter. Allow five minutes to acclimatize, then collect gas for five
minutes and record the volume. Repeat with a fresh shoot of the same length. Do
five shoots for each of the four filters, changing the filter and resetting the lamp
distance between conditions, and randomize the order in which the filters are tested
so that any drift in conditions across the session does not fall systematically on
one color.
Replication and analysis. Five shoots per condition, twenty trials
in total. For each filter I calculate the mean rate and the range, following lesson
1.3, and report both, because a difference between means is meaningless if the
ranges overlap heavily. I would plot mean rate against filter color as a bar chart,
since the four conditions are separate categories rather than a continuous scale, and
a line joining them would imply intermediate wavelengths that were never tested.
What would falsify the hypothesis. If the mean rate under green
light equals or exceeds the rates under red and blue, with non-overlapping ranges,
the hypothesis is wrong. If all four conditions including clear give the same rate
within the spread, then either wavelength does not matter or, more likely, something
else is limiting and the experiment has failed to test its own question, which would
send me back to check the carbon dioxide supply and the intensity matching.
Known weaknesses. Bubble counting is imprecise; filters transmit a
band of wavelengths rather than a single one, so red and blue are not pure; cut
shoots deteriorate over a session, which is why the order of conditions is
randomized; and oxygen production slightly understates photosynthesis because the
plant is respiring at the same time, consuming some of the oxygen it makes. That
last point means every measured rate is a net rate, and the comparison between
filters is still valid because respiration is similar in all four.
Check it against the frame. One independent variable with its levels, a dependent variable with units, controlled variables named individually, replication with a summary method, a hypothesis carrying its mechanism, and a falsifying result written down before any data exist. A design missing the last of those cannot be tested.