Liquid Would Be the Easiest

¶ … liquid would be the easiest to absorb, then the powder, and the pellet would be the hardest o absorb. This hypothesis was reinforced by literature research.

Sixteen chemical elements are known to be contributive to a plant's growth and survival, and these sixteen elements are divided into two groups: non-mineral and mineral.

The non-mineral elements are hydrogen (H), oxygen (O) and, carbon ©. All of these nutrients are found in air and water.

Water is important since in the photosynthesis process, plants convert energy from the sun (carbon and oxygen) and water (hydrogen and oxygen) into starch and sugar. The 13 mineral nutrients that come from the soil are dissolved in water and penetrate the plant's roots easily absorbing into all its crevices.

The mineral nutrients, on the other hand, divided into two groups, macronutrients and micronutrients are far less absorbent. These primary nutrients are potassium (K), phosphorus (P) and nitrogen (N). The secondary nutrients are calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and sulfur (S) (N. Carolina Department of Agriculture).

The absorbent quality of water contributes to plan growth most primarily by it being responsible for the turgor pressure in cells (i.e. For the strength, suppleness and firmness of plant tissue). Turgor is a major source of plant growth and crucial for its growth. Water also assists minerals and carbohydrates to move through the plant. It helps the leaves cool as the water evaporates from the leaf tissue during transpiration. It also controls transpiration and, t o some extent, photosynthesis by monitoring stomatal closing and opening and, finally, it is the instrument with which most biochemical reactions occur. It is in all these ways that water facilitates growth. Most importantly, the speediness with which the water enters into all aspects of the plant and especially its contribution to turgor are all attributed to the fact that water is a readily absorbing material (Environmental factors effecting growth; web). Water's many qualities show it to be more absorbent than the macronutrients or micronutrients and therefore, plausibly, more conducive to plant growth.

Comparing the attributes of water in connection to plant-enhancing growth with those of the micronutrients and macronutrients that also stimulate plant growth, it has been my hypothesis that it is water that is the greatest contributor to plant growth.

My assumption that the absorption ability of water would elad to greater palnt gerowth thant that of the pellet or powder was feruther reinforced by the fact that scientists have discovered that various disease control measures such as biological control agents (Kloeeper & Schroth, 1981), fumigation (Millhouse & Munneke, 1979) and fungicide (Raabe, Hurlimann, & Sciaroni, 1972) incidentally induced plant growth. There was an indirect element that was contributing to this growth, since plants treated with measures not listed above did not evidence this growth. Kloepper and Schroth (1981), for instance, reported that radish seeds controlled with rhizobacteria and grown under gnotobiotic conditions (i.e. A controlled environment that has less organisms that a raw environment) did not demonstrate unusual growth. When grown in raw soil however, growth did result from the interaction of certain activity in the rhizosphere (Salt, 1978). Could this be due to the fact that gnotobiotic environments have less liquid in their soil? (Organisms also contribute to the level of water). Or may it be due to the fact that a certain significant macronutrient or micronutrient is missing? If liquid were missing but macro or micro nutrients were present, this further reinforces my assumption since it is the added elemtn of water (even thoguh all palnts were fed the same amount of water btu more was added in the liquid case) that was missing in the gnotobiotic environments leading to stunted growth.

The following study suggests that whilst macro and micronutrients are conducive to plant growth it is water that has the greatest impact on, and is the most crucial regulator of plant growth and, when regulated, can lead to the highest growth spurt. The author of this study, therefore, wished to test the effects of a pellet, one of whose elements originated from a microorganism, powder that sourced from a microorganism, and water. The hypothesis was that whilst each would contribute to plant growth, the greatest amount of growth would emerge from the water and that even thoguh all plants in each of the other 2 studies initially received the same amount of water in their feeding / growth process, addition of water to the experimental study of the Brassica rapa would -- due to water's enhanced absorption capacities -- evidence enhanced plant growth.. Formulating these hypotheses in a scientific manner: the positive hypothesis was the following:

1. Water would lead to the greatest amount of growth

The null hypothesis, on the other hand, asserted that:

1. No difference in growth would be found between the properties of the water and the properties of the powder or the pellet.

Contributions of this study would be the following:

Firstly, we would be able to determine whether it is water or the macronutrient or the micronutrient that is the greatest producer of growth to the plant. If it were water that indeed were the case, scientist would be able to adjust the level of water in gnotobiotic environments so that plants can achieve the same level of height there as they can in raw environments. Scientists may also employ more water in their fertilizers (of course, within reason) to regulate growth. Finally, knowledge of this research would be interesting for theoretical interests too since whilst it is known that Sixteen chemical elements are known to be contributive to a plant's growth, and growth-enhancing differences have as yet been undistinguished, discovering that it is water that conduces optimum growth through its capacity to be the easiest to absorb develops our knowledge on the subject a bit further.