Ap Bio Lab Write-Ups From 2022-2023

Hinckley 1
All AP Biology
Lab
Write-Ups
Years 2022-2023
By: Paige Hinckley

Hinckley 2
Index:
- Cell Size: An Approach to Understanding a Cell’s Limitations: Pg 3-7
- The effects of Catalase on the Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide: Pg
8-21
- Lights Effect on Photosynthesis using leaf disks: Pg 22-29
- Cellular Respiration: Pg 30-36
- Bacterial Transformation Using of E Coli: Pg 37-42
- NaCl Effect on the growth and Development of Brine Shrimp: Pg 43-49
- A Common Ancestry Between Organisms: Pg 50-56
- Isopod Reactions to Different Environments which includes the experimentation
between a Wet vs. Dry environment as well as an Acidic vs. Basic Environment: Pg
57-66
- Using the Mark and Recapture Method in Order to Calculate the Size
of a Population: Pg 67-73
Hinckley 3
Paige Hinckley Lab Write Up #1 10/5/2022
Partner: Mikayla Lawrence
Cell Size: An Approach to Understanding a Cell’s Limitations
Abstract: During the Laboratory experiment I cut 3 different sizes of beets, ranging from 3cm to
1cm and placed them in bleach for 30 minutes. The results were to show which size of beet
would be more efficient. This would represent the reasoning as to why cells are so small, well for
efficiency. The results showed that the smaller the cell the higher surface area to ratio would be
meaning, the smaller the cell, the more efficient.
Introduction: A question was posed during this experiment, why is it that cells can not grow
infinitely in size? Well cell’s have a surface area to volume ratio that is extremely important and
keeps cells a relatively small size. The surface area allows materials to effectively diffuse
throughout the cell. It is important for small cells to have a high surface area to volume ratio for
substances to efficiently diffuse through the cell membrane. During this experiment we used
beets and placed them in bleach which would turn the red pigment in beets white. The pigment
determines the color of materials. This procedure was to test surface area in order to tell which
cell size is more effective and why cells are so small. A Null Hypothesis to this procedure is that
the surface area to volume ratio of beets to bleached beet will be no different no matter the size
of the beet. An alternative hypothesis is that the smaller the beet size the higher the surface area
to volume of beets to bleach will be.

Hinckley 4
Materials and Procedure: In order for others to perform this procedure there are multiple
materials needed. For starters you will need fresh beets, it will work just as well with canned
beets, but fresh beets are preferred for the most accurate results. In order to cut the beet you will
need a knife, size may vary, I recommend that you use a small paring knife but any size is
perfectly fine. You will then need a ruler to measure the beet into the most accurate shapes you
can make. Next you will need bleach in order to color the beet, this experiment will work best
with a fresh bottle of bleach. Along with the bleach you will need 3 beakers and tongs. The
beakers are for holding the bleach while the tongs are for taking the bleach out of the containings
at the end of the experiment. Plastic wrap is also required to place over the 3 beakers when the
beets and bleach are in their containers so that no outside variables will affect them and taint the
results. You will also need a timer to calculate how long the beets are in the bleach. And a
calculator to calculate the surface area to volume ratio. Most importantly you will need safety
supplies including; goggles, gloves, and an apron to prevent bleach getting on your skin, clothes,
and/or eyes.
Now that you have all of your materials it's time for you to begin your experiment. First
and foremost, put on your safety gear including goggles, gloves, and an apron. After you have
done that it's time to begin. Start with cutting 3 different sizes of beets, the beets should be 3cm,
2cm, and 1cm in cube form, meaning each size should be equal and there should be a total of 6
sides per cube. One thing to note is to make sure to measure your beets after you have cut them,
you will probably get a different size and they won't be perfect but still make note of it. You
should then place each cube, there should be three, into their own separate container. Begin
pouring bleach until the cubes are completely submerged in the bleach. Then cover beakers with
plastic wrap in order to prevent outside substances tainting the results. After that, set a timer for
Hinckley 5
30 minutes. When the timer rings and the 30 minutes is up, unwrap the plastic wrap and carefully
extract the beets from the bleach with tongs and then place the beets on a paper towel. After that
is done, take out the knife you use to cut the beet cubes and cut the beets in half, and note your
observations. Once that is done use a ruler to measure the volume of the penetrated beet cube
which will be the white part and the volume of the unpenetrated part of the beet cute which will
be the part that is still white.
Data Collection and analysis:
Cube Size Total Unpenetrated Penetrated Percent Surface SA:V
Volume Volume Volume Diffusion Area Ratio
(cm³) (cm³) (cm³) (%) (cm2)
3cm 26.97cm³ 15cm³ 11.97cm³ 44.38% 53.94cm2 2
2cm 5.7cm³ 2.7cm³ 3cm³ 52.63% 17.28cm2 3.08
1cm .64cm³ .384cm³ .256cm³ 40% 4.8cm2 7.5
How I got to that Data:
3cm
V=(3)(3.1)(2.9)=26.97 Unpenetrated V= (2.4)(2.5)(2.5)=15 Penetrated V= 26.97-15=11.97
Percent Diffusion: 11.97/26.97= 44.38% SA: (3)(3.1)(6)= 53.94 SAV: 2

Hinckley 6
Discussion and Conclusion: After the experiment, I have found that as the cells increased in size
their surface area to volume ratio decreased. For example, the 3cm cube has a SA:V (surface area
to volume) ratio of 2, the 2cm cube has a SA:V ratio of 3.08, and the 1cm cube has a SA:V ratio
of 7.5. This happens because the more volume a cell originally has, the more difficult it is to
have substances diffuse throughout the cell. In smaller cells it is easier and quicker for materials
to diffuse in it which means it is more efficient, representing the statement that cells are small for
efficiency. But there are some errors that could have occurred during this experiment. For starters
the size of the cubes was not perfect which is an error. Leading to weird results that do not
completely support the theory as to why cells do not grow infinitely. Secondly, the saran wrap
covering the bleach and beet beakers could have had different tightness’ which could have
allowed outside elements to have an effect on the substance. Lastly, the beats could have not
been completely covered in bleach because when the bleach was added the beats floated which
can make it hard to cover the entirety of the beet.
In conclusion, these laboratory results support my hypothesis. My hypothesis was that the
smaller the beet size the higher the surface area to volume of beets to bleach will be. I do believe
my results are accurate even though the results may have flaws. But I do have plenty of
suggestions for this experiment. First of all, there should be more than one trial. If there is more
than 1 trial, the results will be far more accurate. Also the way of measuring the beet cubes could
be fixed. Instead of using a knife and rule to bindly measure the cubic lengths, widths, and
heights, we could trace a piece of paper and outline it with a piece of paper. Then on the beet you
could place the paper on the beet and cut into the beet without using a ruler to outline with a
knife. This would make the results more accurate and efficient for this experiment.
Hinckley 7
Questions: This investigation can be continued by using other fruits like cantaloupe or
watermelon to place in bleach. This will show that this can happen in all different kinds of foods,
not just radish. It adds more variety to the experiment. We could also time the amount of time it
takes for radish to have a certain amount of penetration percentage within the cell. This could
help us conclude that different sizes in cells and a high surface area to volume ratio means higher
efficiency.
This investigation did raise a few questions. What would happen if the beets were placed in the
beaker for a longer amount of time? What would happen? Would the results be any different
from before? Also the question of, what would happen if different fruits were placed in the
bleach? Lastly, what would happen if the fruit had folds to represent other organelles like
mitochondria in the cell? This could help explain why surface area is so important.
Hinckley 8
Paige Hinckley Lab Write-Up #2 10/31/2022
The effects of Catalase on the Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment 3 different types of procedures were performed.
During the first procedure, I dipped 5 filter papers, cut out by a hole puncher, into a potato pump
and placed them in different hydrogen peroxide concentrations that were 3%, 1.5%, 0.75%,
0.375%, and distilled water which is 0%. These results will determine the effects of substrate
concentration on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Throughout the 2 procedures, I
suspended a graduated cylinder containing filtered water, dish soap, and 5 grams of potato as
well as a boiling tube containing 2mL of hydrogen peroxide in water baths that were 5℃, 20℃,
40℃, and 60℃. The results earned from this procedure will determine the effect of temperature
on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Finally, during the third procedure, I set out 4
graduated cylinders with 10mL of hydrogen peroxide and gently stirred in 1-2 drops of dish
soap. Then 4 1cm potato pieces were cut up in different ways; whole, ½, ¼, and randomly sliced
into multiple tiny pieces. The purpose of the procedure is to determine the surface area’s effect
on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. All in all, the purpose of this experiment as a whole
was to examine the way that cells break down hydrogen peroxide by using potatoes.
Introduction: Hydrogen peroxide has multiple positive benefits which includes being an
antiseptic that prevents skin infections. However, hydrogen peroxide is a byproduct of all cells
Hinckley 9
and can become toxic to cells. So cells need to have a way of breaking down hydrogen peroxide,
they do this by enzymes. Enzymes are macromolecules that help speed up chemical reactions by
lowering the activation energy. Catalase is the enzyme that breaks down hydrogen peroxide.
Hydrogen peroxide is a substrate which is the material that fits into catalase’s active site, the area
for substrates to bind, and breaks down into water and oxygen. However, different outside
factors affect the rate at which hydrogen peroxide is broken down, such as surface area which is
the amount of area the cell has outside allowing for more efficiency within a cell, temperature,
and substrate concentration which is the concentration of substrates within a cell, this can
increase the efficiency of enzymes. The purpose of this experiment is to look at all the
temperatures, substrate concentration, and surface area to determine how these factors affect the
rate of decomposition of hydrogen peroxide, showing how enzymes react under certain
conditions. In terms of procedure 1, a null hypothesis would be that the substrate concentration
will have no effect on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. I predict that if the substrate
concentration increases then the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide will increase as well. In
procedure 2 a null hypothesis is; the temperature will have no effect on the concentration of
hydrogen peroxide. I predict that if temperature increases then the decomposition of hydrogen
peroxide will increase and then decrease because enzymes have an optimal temperature. Finally,
a null hypothesis to procedure 3 is that surface area will have no effect on the decomposition of
hydrogen peroxide. But I predict that if surface area increases then the rate of decomposition will
increase as well.
#1 Materials and Procedure:
Materials: Before starting procedure one, multiple materials are needed. First and foremost, you
will need Potato extract as well as a container for the potato extract. On top of that, you will need
Hinckley 10
to obtain an insulated container full of crushed ice and then you will place the container of potato
extract within the insulated container, preventing the enzymes from working. In addition, you
will need a plethora of different containers, including a 100mL and a 10mL graduated cylinder, 5
beakers, and five test tubes. Hydrogen peroxide will also be needed, 3% to be exact, this is the
normal percent of hydrogen peroxide available in grocery stores or local pharmacies. This
hydrogen peroxide will eventually be distributed into different dilutions between the 5 beakers.
Furthermore, filter paper will be needed because it represents how enzymes speed up reactions
so the filter paper will float to the top. To cut the filter paper you will need a hole puncher and
should punch at least 5 holes. Additionally, a paper towel will be needed to dab the filter paper
on to keep the paper from dripping the potato extract. In order to get the filter paper in and out of
the test tubes forceps or a stirring rod can be used. Finally, a stopwatch will be used to time how
long it takes for the filter paper to float to the top of the solution. You will also need distilled
water that will act as a negative control as it is known to have no effect on the filter paper.
However, before starting this experiment you need to have safety equipment. This includes
protective goggles, a lab coat, gloves, as well as the forceps that were mentioned before to not
touch the hydrogen peroxide solution.
Procedure: Now that you have obtained all the necessary materials you will need for this
procedure starts by placing the potato pulp within the container in the insulated container full of
crushed ice. Secondly, you will need to prepare a plethora of different hydrogen peroxide
solutions. First label 5 different breakers with the desired hydrogen peroxide concentration; 3%,
1.5%, .75%, .375%, and 0%. In order to make these different solutions you will start with 200mL
of 3% hydrogen peroxide. Then remove 100mL of that solution and transfer it to the 1.5%
where you would then add 100mL of distilled water and stir it. Then again take 100mL of that
Hinckley 11
solution and place it in the 0.75% beaker then add 100mL of distilled water. Then you are going
to take 100mL out of that container, place it in the 0.375% container, stir 100mL of distilled
water and discard 100mL from that container. Finally, add 100mL of distilled water to the 0%
beaker. Now you should have a 3, 1.5, .375, and the 0 percent containers filled. Now grab your 5
test tubes, and fill them up 10mL with each solution. Then cut 5 holes out of your filter paper.
Using the forceps mentioned people dip the filter paper in the potato pump, one at a time, until
completely saturated. Then dap the filter paper on a paper towel in order to drain excess pulp, but
do not dry the paper out. Next, drop the filter paper into the 3% hydrogen peroxide, and record
the time using a stopwatch, the filter paper should rise to the top except with the distilled water,
it will never float. Do this for all solutions and then record the data within a data table.
#1 Data Collection and Analysis:
Hydrogen Peroxide Group 1 Group 2 Class Average
Dilution
0 --- --- ---
0.375 28 seconds 35.62 seconds 31.81 seconds
0.75 17.83 seconds 20.02 seconds 18.925 seconds
1.5 12.77 seconds 14.89 seconds 13.83 seconds
3 8.6 seconds 10.61 seconds 9.605 seconds

Hinckley 12
#1 Discussion and Conclusion:
Discussion: After a close examination of this experiment. I have found that an increase in
substrate concentration leads to an increase in the decomposition rate of hydrogen peroxide. For
example, when the dilution of hydrogen peroxide was 0.375% it took the potato pulp filter paper
31.81 seconds to float to the top of the solution. Then at 0.75% it took 18.927 seconds to float to
the top, at 1.5% it took 13.83 seconds to float to the top, and finally at the top hydrogen peroxide
dilution, 3%, it only took an average of 9.605 seconds to float to the top the hydrogen peroxide
solution. This occurs because when hydrogen peroxide, a substrate, comes into contact with
catalase, an enzyme, the enzyme breaks down the hydrogen peroxide allowing the filter paper to
float. If the concentration of substrates increases then it is easier for the catalase to take the
substrate into its active site and speed up the reaction, which is why the decomposition of
hydrogen peroxide will increase as the substrate concentration is increased. Of course, like any
Hinckley 13
experiment, there could have been some errors. One error that could have been made was that the
hydrogen peroxide concentrations were not accurate which could affect the rate at which the
filter paper floated to the top of the hydrogen peroxide. Another error that could have been made
is that the potato pulp could have been warmer and the ice bath could have melted. Making the
enzyme start to react on its own could produce no results for this procedure. Lastly, the filter
paper could have been dried too much on the paper towel and most of the enzyme may have been
absorbed making the reactions take a lot longer than necessary.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the results of this experiment support my hypothesis. I hypothesized
that an increase in the substrate concentration would lead to an increase in the decomposition of
hydrogen peroxide. I believe that the results I have obtained are accurate and I do not believe
there were any significant mistakes within the experiment itself. I do have a few suggestions for
the experiment itself though. For starters, there should be at least three trials per dilution of
hydrogen peroxide, this will lead to more accurate results and allow room for mistakes to be
noticed if any mistakes are made. Secondly, the potato pulp should be stored in a place where
there is no fluctuation between temperatures. Yes, an ice bath does keep the pulp cold but ice can
eventually melt, causing the enzymes to start working. Instead, the potato pump should be stored
in a fridge where the temperature can be exactly controlled. This would lead to less room for
error. Overall, this experiment is very well done.
Materials: Before beginning this procedure you will need a plethora of supplies. For starters,
you will need a potato, the potato should be fresh. In order to chop the potato you will need a
knife and chopping board, this should allow you to cut up the 5 grams of potato needed for this
experiment. Next, you will need 3% hydrogen peroxide, you should have this from the first
Hinckley 14
procedure, as well as filtered water. Additionally, you will need dish soap, it doesn’t matter what
brand it is. But a pipet should be used to extract the dish soap, and be disposed of after the
experiment. In addition, 4 graduated cylinders and well as 4 boiling-proof test tubes with and
stand to hold them in place will be needed. The water baths are also important, you will need 4
different temperatures, 5℃, 20℃, 40℃, and 60℃. Finally, A balance is also needed as well as
weight boats that should be placed on top of the balance, this should allow you to measure the
initial and final volumes of the beaker. However, don’t forget to wear your safety goggles, lab
coat, and gloves.
Procedure: If you haven’t already set up the four water baths mentioned before with the
temperatures, 5℃, 20℃, 40℃, and 60℃. After doing that add 20mL of filtered water to a
graduated cylinder, then add dish soap to the graduated cylinder. Next, using a knife and a
chopping board, finely slice a potato and weigh out five grams of the potato using a weight boat
placed onto a balance, set this aside for later. In a boiling tube, you will need to add 2mL of 3%
hydrogen peroxide. Now you will add the 5 grams of chopped potato and add it in the graduated
cylinder that already contains both the dish soap and the filtered water. Then, suspend both the
boiling tube as well as the graduated cylinder in the water bath. I recommend that you start at
5℃ and work your way up in temperature. Suspend these solutions for approximately 3 minutes
or until they reach the desired temperature. Once the solutions reach the desired temperature,
immediately read the volume of the solution, then place both the boiling tube and the graduated
cylinder back into the water bath and set a timer for exactly 2 minutes. After the two minutes are
up take both of the containers holding the solutions and record the volume. Finally, subtract the
initial values from the final values to determine the amount of foam generated, and record the
Hinckley 15
volume in cm^3. But remember you need to do this for all of the temperatures; 5℃, 20℃, 40℃,
and 60℃.
Temperature (°C) Initial Volume (cm^3) Final Volume (cm^3) (Final-Initial)
5 20.1 22.2 2.1
20 20.2 36.4 16.2
40 20.0 30.1 10.1
60 20.1 21.0 0.9

Hinckley 16
Discussion: During this experiment, I have observed the effects of temperature on the
decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. I have found that an increase in temperature will lead to an
increase in the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide and then a decrease in hydrogen peroxide,
this is due to an enzyme's optimal temperature. For example, at a temperature of 5℃ 2.1mL of
foam was generated, at 20℃ 16.2mL of foam was produced which is a massive difference
compared to 5℃. After that, the foam amount decreases, at 40℃ 10.1mL of foam is produced,
and at 60℃ only .9mL of foam is produced. The reason behind this is that all enzymes have an
optimal temperature, in which they function the best. However, if that temperature becomes too
great for an enzyme then the enzyme can start to denature, meaning its amino acid strands begin
to unravel, leaving the enzyme functionless. In this case, the optimal temperature is 20°C due to
the production of foam representing the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. However, this
experiment has many flaws that need to be addressed. For example, maintaining the temperature
of water baths can be extremely difficult especially when you only have a stovetop, the water
bath wouldn’t stay at a constant temperature, changing the results completely. Additionally, most
of the time the potato weight will not be the same for every single water bath, this will create
fluctuation between results making the results unusable and insignificant.
Conclusion: In conclusion, these results have supported my hypothesis. I predicted that if
temperature increases then the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide will increase and then
decrease because enzymes have an optimal temperature. Also, I believe that the results I have
retained are accurate but there may be some minor mistakes within this experiment itself. I have
multiple ideas for improving this experiment. First of all, the temperature of the water should be
easier to heat up. For example, there should be something that keeps the containers at the perfect
temperature such as an oven that maintains a certain, constant temperature because the heat of
Hinckley 17
the water is usually fluctuating constantly without a heat source that keeps the solution at a
specific temperature. Another recommendation is that the potato should be able to measure more
accurately, most of the time starch from the potato adds a lot of weight to the potato so the potato
leaves residue on the balance fluctuating the weight. To make the weight constant the outside of
the potato should be dabbed with a paper towel so not a lot of residue is left on the scale and the
weight can remain constant. Last but not least, there could always be more trials which would
lower the window for errors, making the experiment more plausible.
Materials: Compared to procedures 1 and 2 procedure 3 doesn’t require many materials. First
and foremost, a potato is needed as well as a knife and a chopping board to cut up the potato.
You will also need 3% hydrogen peroxide and dish soap. For the dish soap, a pipet is needed for
precise drops of dish soap but after the pipet is used you are able to dispose of it because the
pipette does not clean out easily. You will need 4 graduated cylinders. Finally, for safety
purposes, don’t forget to wear safety goggles, a lab coat, and gloves
Procedure: For starters, set out the 4 graduated cylinders mentioned before. Then add 10mL of
3% hydrogen peroxide to the graduated cylinder. On top of that add 1-2 drops of dish soap to the
graduated cylinder and stir gently in order to not create any bubbles. You then want to take out
both your knife and chopping board to cut a potato. You need 4 square cubes that are 1 cm on
each side. The first cube will remain the same, the second cube will be split in half, the third
cube will be cut into fourths, and the fourth will be cut into multiple pieces. First, add the large
cube into the first graduated cylinder, labeling them might also be helpful, then set the timer for 5
minutes. 30 seconds after that add the cube that is split in half and time that for 5 minutes. 30
seconds later add the cube cut into fourths and time 5 minutes. Then 30 seconds after that add the
Hinckley 18
potato cube that is cut up into multiple tiny pieces, and time it for 5 minutes. It is important to do
each of these cubes 30 seconds from each other so that the data doesn’t become scattered and it
makes it less stressful while recording the data. Then subtract the initial value from the final
value of the graduated cylinders to determine the amount of foam that was generated.
Potato Cubes Initial Volume (cm^3) Final Volume (cm^3) (Final-Initial)
1 12.1 16.5 4.4
2 12.3 28.4 16.1
4 11.7 34.6 22.9
8 11.8 40.4 28.6

Hinckley 19
Discussion: After carefully examining this experiment I have found that when surface area
increases so doesn’t the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. For example, when a 1cm cube
was placed into the solution of 10mL of hydrogen peroxide and dish soap the potato cube had a
foam growth of 4.4, then the 2 cubes had a growth of 16.2, a major difference from the one cube.
Next, the 4 cubes had a foam growth of 22.9, and last but not least the 8 potato cubes had a final
foam growth of 28.6. This occurrence is due to compartmentalization, which is an aspect that
allows cells to have more reactions without interfering with each other. The more surface area
allows the catalase enzyme to interact with the hydrogen peroxide substrate allowing for a higher
amount of hydrogen peroxide breakdown when the surface area increases. There are very few
issues that could have arrived during this experiment. For starters, the most common issue is the
Hinckley 20
size of the potato cubes. Most of the potato cubes will not exactly be 1cm before being cut up.
Additionally, even when the cubes are cut up the sizes will not be the same for each cube. This
will create wacky results that cannot be used to support or refute my hypothesis. Lastly, the dish
soap could be stirred to the point where it has bubbles making this experiment ineffective, but it
is an easy fix and a new solution of hydrogen peroxide and dish soap can be made.
Conclusion: In conclusion, the results of this experiment support my hypothesis. I predicted that
if surface area increases then the rate of decomposition will increase as well. I know that my
results are accurate as well because I measured every piece of 1cm potato thrice. In terms of
improvement, I do not have much to say. If I were to criticize one aspect of this experiment it
would be the measuring of the potato cubes. Instead of measuring a potato with just a ruler and a
knife, there should be paper stencils to draw in order to trace the shape of the potato; or even
better, a cookie cutter that can make the perfect shape without any errors. And of course, this
experiment could always have had more trials for fewer errors and more significant information
in research terms.
Questions:
This investigation can be continued by testing different factors that will affect the rate of
enzymes. For example, pH would be an experiment and is exactly like temperature in the way it
impacts enzyme activity. They both have an optimal number at which the enzyme performs best.
It would also be interesting to try this experiment with an inhibitor. In order to show the effect of
an inhibitor on an enzyme. Also in procedure 2, it would’ve been interesting to increase the
temperature beyond 60℃ to see the effects of catalase fully denaturing.

Hinckley 21
What questions did this investigation raise: During this investigation, a few questions were
raised. What would happen if we used a different enzyme such as lactase instead of catalase? Or
what if we tried to experiment with lactase and its effects on breaking down lactose since a lot of
people in this world have lactose intolerance? Lastly, instead of potatoes what would happen if
we used watermelon instead?

Hinckley 22
Paige Hinckley Lab write-up #3 11/07/2022
Lights Effect on Photosynthesis using leaf disks
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment I cut 20 small holes out of a spinach leaf, using a
hole puncher. The leaves were then placed in a sodium bicarbonate-water solution and separated
into 2 beakers filled to 150mL. 10 of the 20 spinach leaf disks were placed into one beaker and
the rest were placed into the other breaker. One of the beakers was left in the sun for 15 minutes
while the other was in complete darkness. These results would represent the importance of light
during photosynthesis. The results showed that photosynthesis cannot happen without light.
Introduction: A question posed within this experiment was; what is the relationship between
light and photosynthesis? Well, light is extremely important for photosynthesis to be able to
occur. Photosynthesis is the process in which plants and some prokaryotes produce their own
food in the form of glucose, essential to all life. It does this in two phases, the light reaction and
the Calvin cycle. The Light reactions occur in the thylakoid membrane within a chloroplast. This
reaction takes in CO2, solar energy, and water to create the products of ATP and NADPH which
will then go on to help the Calvin cycle, taking place within the stroma in a chloroplast. The
Calvin cycle will use ATP and NADPH to produce G3P which is needed for the formation of
glucose, but that's not all. The Calvin cycle will also produce ADP and NADP+ needed for the
light reactions. These reactions cannot occur without each other. However, during this
experiment, we are focussing on the Light reactions more specifically. During this experiment, I
used spinach leaves in the sodium bicarbonate water solution to test the effect of solar energy on
photosynthesis. During Photosynthesis oxygen is produced as one of the products so the leaf
Hinckley 23
disks that are able to photosynthesize will float to the top. A Null hypothesis to this experiment is
that light will have no effect on the occurrence of photosynthesis. While I predict that an increase
in light exposure will increase the occurrence of photosynthesis.
Materials and Procedure:
Materials: Before starting this experiment you will need some supplies. For starters, you will
need spinach leaves, it doesn't matter if they are in a bag or not. However, you will need a hole
puncher in order to cut out small leaf disks. Next, you will need sodium bicarbonate or baking
soda, many people have this at home but it can be bought in your local grocery store. Another
household item you will need is dish soap, the brand doesn’t matter. Additionally, you will need
things that do not have an expiration date and can be found in your house or in a school lab. A
scale and weighing paper will be needed first to measure 1.5g of sodium bicarbonate. In order to
hold a solution you will need two different types of beakers, one able to hold 500mL of solution,
this is where the main solution will be made, and two beakers that can hold 200mL of solution,
which will hold the leaf disks and solution. In order to stir the solution you can use a spoon or
stirring rod. A pipette will also be used to place two drops of dish soap into the solution, the
pipette can be disposed of after use. Now to extract the oxygen from leaf disks a plastic syringe
will be needed, the syringe shouldn’t have a needle. Remember that light is the most important
aspect of this experiment. If it is a nice and clear day outside, bring one of the solutions outside
while leaving the other one in complete darkness, like in a cabinet. However, if it is not nice
outside, you can use an ordinary lamp. Lastly, safety is the most important. Make sure to wear
goggles, a lab coat, gloves, and use a paper towel if anything spills.
Hinckley 24
Procedure: Now that you have collected all the materials needed for the experiment. First of all,
take 3-4 spinach leaves and punch 20 holes in them using a hole puncher, making sure to punch
between the veins. Next, you need to prepare a sodium bicarbonate and water solution. To make
this, weigh 1.5g of sodium bicarbonate on a scale and add it into the 500mL beaker. Then pour
300mL of water into the beaker containing the sodium bicarbonate, Stir gently until completely
mixed. Next, add 2 drops of dish soap into the solution and stir it carefully to avoid bubbles.
Now split the mixture into 150mL each within the two 200mL beakers. If there are bubbles
alternate between the large beaker and the small beaker to filter the bubbles out. In order to
extract oxygen from the leaf disks find the string and remove the plunger. Then fill the syringe
with the 20 disks, but I have found it easier to separate the disks into ten first and don’t do all the
disks at once. Next, add the sodium bicarbonate and water solution into the syringe about ⅓ of
the way full, and put the plunger back in. Hold the syringe upward and gently expel the
remaining air from the tip of the syringe. Then place your finger on top of the syringe and pull
the plunger back, creating a vacuum, hold it for 20-30 seconds. The disks should sink if they
don’t try it a second time but if it doesn't work after that hole punch 20 new leaf disks. Now
remove the plunger and gently separate the solution from the disks. Put the solution back into the
beaker and separate disks into groups of ten in each 200mL beaker. Finally, place one beaker in
light and watch the disks float up for 15 minutes. Then place the other disks in a dark area with
no light. Record your data.
Data Collection and Analysis:

Hinckley 25
Time (min) # of leaf disks # of leaf disks
floating floating (Dark)
(Light)
1 0 0
2 1 0
3 6 0
4 9 0
5 9 0
6 9 0
Hinckley 26
7 9 0
8 9 0
9 9 0
10 9 0
11 9 0
12 9 0
13 9 0
14 9 0
15 9 0
Discussion and Conclusion:
After this experiment, I have found that in order for photosynthesis to happen light is required.
Solar Energy allows for photosynthesis to occur. For example, I have found that 9 out of the 10
disks in light float to the top telling me that they went through photosynthesis since one of the
products of photosynthesis is oxygen and oxygen makes things float. Also in the beaker where
there was no light photosynthesis did not even occur because after 15 minutes no leaf disks were
floating, unlike the disks in light. Encapsulating the idea that photosynthesis requires light in
order to make glucose (C6H12O6) and oxygen (O2). I believe that my results are accurate,
however there are still plenty of errors that could have occurred. First of all I could have not
Hinckley 27
extracted all of the oxygen out of the leaf disks. This would cause all of the leaf disks to float
even the ones in the dark, which would then taint all of the data collected. Also some light may
have been able to go to the beaker that was supposed to stay in the dark, this could cause the
leaves to have absorbed light leading them to perform photosynthesis making the experiment
inconclusive. Lastly, I could have punched a hole through the veins of the leaf causing the leaf to
have other liquid substances mixed in within the disks, this would then taint the data collected
from this experiment.
In conclusion, these laboratory results support my hypothesis. I predicted that in the presence of
light the leaf disks would be able to perform photosynthesis. For example, as time increased the
number of leaf disks floating increased for the breaker in light but stayed the same for the beaker
in the dark. Before discussing improvements that could have been made to this experiment I
would like to discuss questions posed by this experiment. For starters, the independent variable
was the light while the dependent variable was the flotation of disks representing the occurrence
of photosynthesis. Secondly, dish soap was added to the solution to stimulate photosynthesis by
coating the leaf with a thin layer of soap which will then help sodium bicarbonate stick to the
plant disks. Oxygen is a variable in light reactions, in this experiment oxygen is a product that
comes from water splitting, a process that adds a concentration gradient to light reactions. So the
purpose of creating a vacuum seal was to extract all oxygen from the plant allowing the plant to
sink. The plant sinks because oxygen is a gas that makes things float and in this case when
oxygen isn’t present the leaf disks wouldn’t float. Lastly, leaf disks in the light floated because
they were able to absorb light energy and with the help of both light energy, CO2, and water the
plants were able to perform photosynthesis using both the light reaction and Calvin cycle.
However, the plant disks that were in the dark didn’t folate because they weren’t able to absorb
Hinckley 28
light, preventing them from going through photosynthesis. Now how can this experiment be
improved? For starters, this experiment should have been repeated at least two more times for
more accurate results. Additionally, the leaves could have been put into a vacuum chamber to get
rid of all oxygen; this would make the probability of error decrease. Lastly, the spinach leaf disks
could have been kept in their specific light requirement for a longer period of time, this would
completely prove that photosynthesis cannot happen without the presence of light.
Questions: There are numerous ways this investigation can be continued. An example of this is
using different types of leaves. For example, maple leaves, basil leaves, or flower leaves. The
effects of pH on photosynthesis would also be a viable investigation. More importantly, different
colors of light at different intensities would be something interesting to experiment with. For
example we could use green, violet, blue, and orange light to see what color plants like more in
order to perform photosynthesis.
This investigation raised a few questions. First and foremost, what would happen if the leaf disks
were placed into different colors? What would happen if we experimented using a whole leaf
instead of leaf disks? What would happen if we used leaves that were different colors? Would
there be a difference? All of these questions could give us a better understanding of
photosynthesis and the factors that affect it.
Works Cited
“Baking Soda, a Home Remedy Fungicide - the Cornell Formula Baking Soda, a Home Remedy
Fungicide - the Cornell Formula.” Garden Myths,

Hinckley 29
https://www.gardenmyths.com/baking-soda-home-remedy-fungicide-cornell-formula/.
Accessed 7 November 2022.

Hinckley 30
Cellular Respiration
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment, I placed different substances into three vials
containing steel washers. The first one contained glass beads, the second, germinating seeds, and
the third was a mixture between beads and non-germinating seeds. Each of these substances was
then surrounded by cotton mixed with potassium hydroxide on the bottom and non-absorbent
cotton on the top. The vial then had a pipette with a stopper on the top, sealing the substance
within the vial. Then place all three vials in a bin full of water. This experiment will determine if
germination has an effect on the rate of respiration.
Introduction: A question was posed during this experiment; does germination affect the rate of
respiration? Cellular respiration is a process in which organisms break down glucose in order to
produce ATP, adenosine triphosphate. This will then fuel the performance and functions within
the cell. ATP is also needed for photosynthesis and all the functions requiring energy without it
an organism would not be able to survive. However, cellular respiration isn’t just a singular
phase; it contains a total of three phases; Glycolysis, Citric Acid Cycle, and Oxidative
phosphorylation. Glycolysis is the first process and breaks down glucose into 2 pyruvates. An
intermediate reaction is pyruvate oxidation which then breaks down the pyruvate into acetyl CoA
which is needed by the Citric Acid cycle, also known as the kreb cycle. The citric acid cycle uses
the Acetyl CoA to produce 2ATP, CO2, and the two electron carriers, NADH and FADH2. These
carriers will help the final process of cellular respiration. The final step in cellular respiration is
oxidative phosphorylation. The process uses H+ electrons carried by the carrier molecules,
Hinckley 31
NADH and FADH2. This process will produce the highest amount of ATP ranging from 26-28
ATP. During this experiment the aspect of cellular respiration is being tested within plants. The
CO2 produced during cellular respiration will represent the rate of respiration. A Null hypothesis
is that germinating and non-germinating peas have no effect on the rate of cellular respiration. I
predict that the germinating peas will have a higher rate of cellular respiration than the non
germinating peas.
Materials: Before performing this experiment you will need a plethora of materials. For starters,
you will need 3 separate vials along with three metal washers, the metal washers should be
tapped onto the bottom, this will prevent the vials from floating up later on in this experiment.
Along with the vials and washers you will need a stopper as well as a pipette. In order to place
these two things together you can use simple waterproof tape. With both the metal washer vials
and the stoppers you are creating a respirometer. Now you will need the substances going into
the respirometer. Beads are going to be a control, the beads can be glass or plastic. Additionally,
Non Germinating peas are needed, you should place more than 20 of the non germinating peas in
the water to make them germinate because you will need 20 germinating seeds for this
experiment, but make sure you have plenty of non-germinating ones leftover. Next you will need
a 100mL graduated cylinder, this is where the substances will be contained. Surrounding the
substances you will need absorbent cotton below the substances and non absorbent cotton above
the absorbent cotton so sodium hydroxide doesn’t interfere with the substances. As mentioned
before sodium hydroxide is needed, this is a highly toxic substance so it requires a laboratory
Hinckley 32
pipette. However, sodium hydroxide can be bought on amazon. In addition, a large bucket for
water will be needed as well as a thermometer to test the temperature of the water. The
thermometer should stay in the water throughout the entire experiment. This will check to see if
the water temperature is constant. Lastly, for safety a laboratory jacket, gloves, goggles, and
paper towels are recommended.
Procedure: Now that you have all of the material needed for this experiment it is time to begin.
For starters, we are going to begin by measuring the amount of substances for each. Fill a 100mL
graduated cylinder with 50 mL of water then place 20 germinating peas in the graduated cylinder
and measure how high the water goes when you add the germinating peas. Then take the peas out
and place them on a paper towel. Now refill the graduated cylinder with 50mL of water and
place the amount of beads needed in order to increase the water levels to the same height of the
germinating peas and place them on a paper towel. Repeat the process with beads but with the
non-germinating peas and the beads combined. Fill the graduated cylinder until it reaches the
same level as germinating peas. You do not need the same amount of non-germinating seeds and
beads though. After this is completed, fill each vial with a layer of absorbent cotton, then grab a
pipette and add .5mL of sodium hydroxide to each vial. Next, add a layer of non-absorbent
cotton on top, this will prevent sodium hydroxide from interacting with the substances. Finally,
place the stoppers connected to the pipettes onto and seal the vials, making sure that the stoppers
do not pop off. Now you have a respirometer. Set the respirometer inside the bucket of water that
should have a thermometer in it making sure that the water temperature is constant. Place the
respirometers on their sides for 5 minutes. After that time is done, submerge the respirometers
completely underwater, due to the five minutes the respirometers spent tilting a bubble should
Hinckley 33
form within the pipette. Even five minutes for 20 minutes observe the bubble and write down
how far the bubble has gone. Record these observations in a table.
Temp Time Beads Beads Germinating Germinating Germina Beads N Beads Beads N
Alone Alone Peas Peas ting Peas Dry Peas Dry Peas Dry Peas
20 x Reading at Difference Reading at Difference Correcte Reading Difference Correct
time time d at time Difference
Differen
ce
20 0 8.85 x 8.75 x x 8.0 x x
20 5 8.8 0.05 7.25 1.5 1.45 7.8 0.2 0.15
20 10 8.75 0.10 6 2.75 2.65 6.9 1.3 1.2
20 15 8.7 0.15 4.75 4.0 3.85 5.9 2.1 1.95
20 20 8.3 0.55 3.75 5.0 4.45 5.1 2.9 2.35
Discussion: After close examination, I have found that germination seeds perform cellular
respiration at a higher rate than the non-germinating seeds. For example, during the 20 minute
interval the bubble within the pipette traveled down 5mL, with a correct difference of 4.45. The
Hinckley 34
bubble went from 8.75mL on the pipette to 3.75mL on the pipette. This is due to the O2
consumed during this experiment. In order for cellular respiration to produce the maximi=um
amount of ATP in germinating seeds, the seeds need to intake oxygen. So when the amount of
oxygen decreases the bubble will go down the pipette. Showing that the germinating seeds
performed cellular respiration more efficiently than the non-germinating seeds. The
non-germinating seeds had the bubble in the pipette move down 2.9mL from where the bubble
first started at, 8mL. The corrected difference is 2.35. Overall the germinating seeds had a
decrease of 4.45mL while the non-germinating and beads had a decrease of 2.35mL. I am not
completely sure if my results are accurate so there's a plethora of errors that could have occurred.
First and foremost, the stoppers on the vial could have come undone, this happened for my
germinating seeds so I needed to borrow data from another group. Overall, if the stopper doesn’t
stay on the result of that substance can become extremely tainted. Secondly, I could have used
absorbent cotton instead of non absorbent cotton to place on top of the sodium hydroxide cotton.
This could cause all of the vials to have inefficient data, making this experiment useless. Lastly,
the temperature of the water could fluctuate and a spike in temperature could cause the bubble in
the pipette to speed up or slow down, making all data strange and disordered.
Conclusion: In conclusion, these laboratory results support my hypothesis. I predicted that the
germinating peas will have a higher rate of cellular respiration than the non germinating peas.
For example, as the time increased during this experiment the bubble in the germinating seed
respirator decreased greatly, more than the non-germinating seed respirator. Before discussing
improvements that need to be done to this experiment, I would like to discuss the questions that
were posed by this experiment. First of all, germination does have an effect on respiration. This
is due to the seeds needed to grow into a plant. During germination plants are not able to perform
Hinckley 35
photosynthesis yet, which allows them to make glucose, however with stored energy within the
seed the seed is able to bring that down into ATP through the process of cellular respiration.
Additionally, the statement, “Dormant seeds do not respire” is incorrect. Due to the results the
dormant seeds still take in oxygen in order to perform respiration even though non-germinating
seeds do not go through as much cellular respiration as germinating seeds do. Secondly, sodium
hydroxide was added to the respirometers because it absorbs carbon dioxide. This will then
change the volume of gas within the respirometer, allowing the volume of gas to be directly
related to the amount of oxygen consumed. Now, if the temperature of the water increases within
the respirators, I predict that the rate of respiration will increase as well up until a certain point. If
it gets two hot then the proteins that help transfer electrons will denature and unravel which will
then change the shape and function of the protein. If the temperature of the water decreases, I
predict that the rate of cellular respiration will decrease because molecules will not be able to
move as quickly. Furthermore, water moved into the respirometers because as time increased
more oxygen was taken in by the seeds this led to a decrease in gas volume resulting in a
decrease of pressure as well, allowing water to move into the respirometers. Lastly, it is
necessary to correct the readings of the respirometers because the beads act as a control and if
they change that means some outside aspect is probably affecting the results so when you
subtract the bead respirometers from the other it assures that the data is accurate. Finally, there
are multiple improvements that can be made to this experiment. First of all, instead of stoppers,
cork could be used. I believe that cork would have a stronger attachment onto the vials so that
the respirometers wouldn’t fall apart. Additionally, the water bath should be contained in a more
secluded area so that air flow will not affect the temperature of the water. For example, putting
the path in a cardboard box which could prevent airflow from interfering with the temperature of
Hinckley 36
the water. Of course, this experiment could have at least 2 more rounds of this experiment for
more accurate results.
Questions:
This experiment can be continued by changing certain factors within this experiment. For
starters, instead of using germinating pea seeds we could use watermelon seeds, pepper seeds, or
strawberry seeds. Would the rate of cellular respiration be different even if the size of seeds are
smaller? Also, instead of using beads, marbles could be used instead. The respirators could also
be derived from light. This could show that germinating seeds are performing cellular
respiration, supporting the idea that plants can perform both photosynthesis and cellular
respiration.
What questions did this investigation raise: During this investigation a few questions were
raised. What would happen if different seeds were used? What if sodium hydroxide wasn’t used?
How different would the results be? What would happen if the substances were the only things
within the respirators and not the cotton?

Hinckley 37
Paige Hinckley Lab write-up #5 2/5/2023
Bacterial Transformation Using of E Coli
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment, I used four different plates with each one full of. E
Coli bacteria. The only difference is the substances being used. The first plate only contained LB
which is the nutrient broth. The second one contained both the LB of the previous plate and
AMP, which is a substance that prevents cell growth. Therefore the second plate will most likely
be empty. The third plate is the same as the second, however, this plate contains bacteria that are
thriving; this is due to the addition of the pGLO plasmid in the plate. Then the fourth plate
contains LB, AMP, and ARA. The ARA is a substance used in jellyfish to make them glow under
UV light. These substances are then placed under a UV light for observation. Overall, this
experiment will allow me to look at the bacterial transformation within E Coli.
Introduction: A question was posed during this experiment; why did the -DNA bacteria not
survive while the +DNA bacteria did? Well, this is all due to transformation. Transformation is a
process in which prokaryotic cells can exchange genetic material through horizontal gene
transfer which is a process where a gene or genes from one organism is transferred to another
organism. In the case of transformation, when a bacteria sheds a plasmid another plasmid can
uptake the shredded plasmid from its environment. This is called transformation.Transformation
is an important aspect for bacteria because it provides the bacteria with the ability to survive
tough conditions and become stronger and more modified. However, during this experiment,
multiple different plates containing bacteria were tested. However, the one containing LB was
not able to survive and this was due to AMP, which prevented the growth of the bacteria.
Hinckley 38
However, the other plate that contained both LB and AMP flourished. This was due to a
successful horizontal gene transfer in which the LB/AMP bacteria plate was able to inherit the
pGLO plasmid, giving it the ability to survive and flourish. With that being said the exchange of
genetic material between the bacteria allows bacteria to survive. The Null hypothesis would be
that there is no difference between the Bacteria containing the pGLO plasmid and the bacteria
that doesn’t contain the pGLO plasmid. I predict that the bacteria that contains the pGLO
plasmid will be able to produce bacteria that contains a resistance to AMP compared to the
bacteria without the pGLO plasmid.
Materials: Before beginning this experiment you will need to gather a plethora of materials.
First and foremost, you will need E coli starter plates, these plates will most likely be prepared
for you and will already contain a growing bacteria culture of E coli. Next, you will need 4 agar
plates. 2 of these plates should just contain LB and the other 2 plates should contain a mixture of
both LB and AMP. The AMP symbolizes ampicillin, which is supposed to stop the growth of
bacteria. Additionally, you should have a CaCl2 (Calcium Chloride) solution which will help
open up the plasma membrane in order for the bacteria to absorb a new plasmid. Also, it is
important to note that this should be kept on ice so the CaCl2 doesn’t start working yet. Then
you will need an LB nutrient broth, a solution that can be used for bacterial growth. Now you
will need a sterile inoculation loop which is used to spread the E Coli culture onto the plates, but
be sure to do now use the inoculation loop more than once and change the loop whenever you're
working with a different plate. Next, a pipet is needed to transport substances throughout this
experiment. Now, in terms of a water bath, you will need microcentrifuge tubes and a floating
Hinckley 39
holder for the water bath; these will contain the -DNA and +DNA parts. Additionally, the water
path will need to have hot water that is 42 degrees celsius, this temperature can be monitored
using a thermometer. Now, you will need ice which will be used to shock the microcentrifuge
tubes. Of course, you will also need the pGLO plasmid which contains AMP resistance, this is an
essential part of this experiment. A new incubator will be needed that has the ability to be 37
degrees Celsius. An incubator can usually be found by asking a science lab or even a farmer.
Lastly, you will just need bleach, this can be found in your local grocery store. However, don’t
forget safety. You must wear goggles, a lab coat, gloves, and if you have long hair you need a
hair tie. In order to get rid of the material once the experiment is completed use Hazard Waste
Disposable bags.
Procedure: Once you have collected all of your materials it is time to begin the experiment. First
and foremost, gather the 2 microcentrifuges and label 1 as “+ plasmid” and label the other one as
“-plasmid.” Then you should add 250ml of CaCl2 solution into each tube and then you should
play both of the tubes in a bed of ice. You will then use the inoculation loop to pick up some of
the bacteria from a starter plate. You will then move the inoculation loop holding the bacteria
into the +plasmid tube. Then gently stir up the inoculation tube to ensure that all of the bacteria
has dispersed. Then use a different inoculation loop in order to not cross-contaminate. Then do
the same thing except now place the inoculation loop into the -plasmid tube. Once you have
obtained the plasmid solution you will need to remove 10uL of the plasmid solution and place it
into the +plasmid microcentrifuge tube using a pipette. Make sure you tap the microcentrifuge to
mix the plasmids into the solution. Then place this solution on ice for 10 more minutes. After
this label each of the 4 agar plates, you should have. Name them, no pGLO LB only, no pGLO
LB/AMP, pGLO LB/AMP, and pGLO LB/AMP/ARA. After the ten minutes are up you want to
Hinckley 40
take the microfuge tubes out of the ice then gently place them in the water on a floater for 50
seconds. After the time is up take the tubes and place them back in ice for 2 minutes. After that,
remove the tubes from the ice and place them on a workbench where you will then add 250uL of
LB broth to the +plasmid tube and gently tap the tube to mix the solutions. Repeat this step for
the -plasmid tube and incubate both the + and - plastic tubes for 10 minutes at room temperature.
Using a different pipette from before transfer 100uL of the + plasmid microcentrifuge and the -
plasmid microcentrifuge on an appropriate plate. Make sure to use a different pipette for each
plate in order to prevent cross-contamination. Finally, use an inoculation loop in order to spread
the mixture over the plate. Yet again make sure to use a different loop for each plate. Lastly,
incubate the plates at 37 degrees celsius in an incubator for 24 hours, then analyze the results.
No UV Light Under UV Light

Hinckley 41
Discussion: After close examination of this experiment. I have found that the bacterial plates
that contained the pGLO had the ability to grow even within the presence of AMP, a substance
that is meant to prevent bacteria from growing. For example, the E coli, mixed with the only LB
plate, died after exposure to AMP; this plate also lacked pGLO. However, in both of the plates
that contained pGLO and AMP, there was still bacterial growth and these cultures continued to
thrive. Another thing that was examined closely was the appearance of ARA in the pGLO
LB/AMP/ARA. Additionally, under a UV light, this plate glows in the dark. I have found that
this is due to transformation in which the bacteria take in the plasmid for ARA which will then
express the gene for glowing. Overall, the LB only died, the pGLO LB/AMP survived, and only
the LB/AMP/ARA glowed under UV light. Of course, like any experiment, there can be multiple
different types of results. One error that could have occurred is that the same innocuous loop was
used more than once on the DNA which would lead to cross-contamination and completely
wrong results. Another error that could have occurred is that the pipette was reused which would
yet again cause cross-contamination. Another error could occur due to mislabeling and the LB
with AMP that didn’t contain pGLO could be mislabeled with the LB/AMP containing pGLO
this would make the results confusing. Therefore the results would not be accurate.
Conclusion: In conclusion, these laboratory experiments support my hypothesis. I predicted that
the bacteria that contains the pGLO plasmid will be able to produce bacteria that contains a
resistance to AMP compared to the bacteria without the pGLO plasmid. Not only this but the
LB/AMP/ARA bacteria was also able to produce more bacterial colonies. For example, only the
plates containing the pGLO combined E Coli was able to keep reproducing. Before discussing
improvements that could have been made to this experiment I would like to discuss questions
Hinckley 42
posed by this experiment. First and foremost the pGLO plasmid is composed of 3 different types
of genes, the araC gene, the GFP gene, and the pAMP gene. Also, the CaCl2 was added to the
solution in order to help open up the plasma membrane on the bacteria so this will allow the
bacteria to take in the plasmid, allowing it to transform. Lastly, E. coli is not naturally resistant to
E coli because, without the pGLO plasmid, the bacteria colony would thrive or survive in AMP.
Now, I have a couple of suggestions for this experiment. First of all, during this experiment, it is
extremely simple to cross-contaminate DNA samples, so I would recommend only using three
plates instead of 4 because it would lower the chance of contamination. Lastly, the heat of an
incubator can drastically increase an increase which can change results so I recommend allowing
the plates to go on a heat plate so there is an even heat distribution.
Questions: There are numerous ways in which this laboratory experiment can be continued. One
way in which it can be continued is to include a plasmid different from pGLO that will pertain to
different results. Another way can be adding multiple different types of bacteria within the LB
bacteria this might show if bacteria are selective when choosing different genes. Then on top of
this experiment, the AMP can be added which could also show if some plasmids can become
resistant when mixed with other plasmids. In addition to this another substance could be used in
order to open the plasmid other than CaCl2
This investigation has raised a few questions. First and foremost, what would happen if
CaCl2 wasn’t used? What would happen if E. coli was exposed to multiple different types of
plasmids at once? Would the E. coli have preferred a certain plasmid over the other? If so, would
this plasmid be the most beneficial to the E coli’s survival?

Hinckley 43
Paige Hinckley Lab Write Up #6 2/17/2023
NaCl Effect on the growth and Development of Brine Shrimp
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment, I placed four different salinity levels into 4 Petri
dishes then using a fine paintbrush I placed the brine shrimp cysts into each solution which
contained dechlorinated water and NaCl. The first petri dish contained a NaCl level of 0%. The
second dish contained 2% of NaCl. The third contained 6% of NaCl and the fourth contained 8%
of NaCl. These dishes were then transferred to microscope slides with double-sided tape on each
side. The number of hatched and dead brine shrimp were examined at 0 hours, 24 hours, and then
48 hours. Overall, the main goal of this experiment was to see how salinity levels affect hatching
viability.
Introduction: A question was posed during this experiment; how do salinity levels affect the
hatching viability of brine shrimp? Brine shrimp are small organisms often referred to as “sea
monkeys.” These small organisms thrive in salty environments, more specifically the Great Salt
Lake of Utah. Brine shrimp contain a total of 14-17 steps within their lifecycle, however, the
main steps are; Cysts, Nauplii, Juveniles, and adults. The main stage we’ll focus on during this
experiment is the cyst stage. Cysts are just like eggs in the sense that they contain the brine
shrimp embryo within them. Cysts also have a unique way to survive when conditions are not
ideal. The mother brine shrimp will release dormant cysts which are arrested in development
until conditions are ideal. In this experiment, we will be focussing on the salinity of the brine
shrimp environment. Salinity means the salt concentration within the water and can be a large
determining factor in the growth and survival of all organisms. For example, let's say an ocean
Hinckley 44
contained a NaCl concentration of 4% then a human was to drink that water and their cells
contained a lower NaCl concentration then the cells would be placed in a hypertonic solution
meaning that salinity in the outside environment is higher than the inside leading to the human
cells shriveling up and eventually dying. On the other hand, if a person drank too much pure
water their cells would be in a hypotonic environment meaning that water would flow into the
cells causing the cells to swell and lyse which can also lead to death. Therefore the perfect
tonicity would be an isotonic environment, this is when materials are being exchanged out of the
cell at the same time. With all of this being said, the brine shrimp, in this case, would survive in
an environment that is best suited to their needs and the best will come from an isotonic
environment. A null hypothesis for this experiment would be that Environmental salinity levels
within the environment will not impact the growth and development of brine shrimp. I predict
that the brine shrimp with a salinity of 8% NaCl will have higher hatching viability than the
lower NaCl concentrations.
Materials: Before starting this experiment you will need some supplies. For starters, you will
need brine shrimp cysts, these can commonly be found online and are usually marketed as “seas
monkeys.” Next, you will need NaCl which is commonly known as table salt, this will also be a
factor for salinity during this experiment. Additionally, 4 beakers are needed in order to hold the
NaCl solution. You will need a scale and weigh boats to measure the amount of NaCl. In order to
place the NaCl solution on the weight boats you need a lab spoon or normal spoon which can be
found at your local grocery store. You will also need a graduated cylinder in order to measure the
amount of water you are using. Next, a stirring rod is needed in order to mix the solution. Next,
Hinckley 45
you will need pipettes, these can be disposed of when you are finished since they are difficult to
clear. Petri dishes are also needed and will hold the solution once it is finished. Now, you will
need dechlorinated water which acts as the base for the NaCl solution. Additionally, 4
microscope slides will be needed, these will be the holder for the solution in addition to the brine
shrimp eggs. In order to transfer the brine shrimp cysts to a microscope slide a fine paintbrush
will be needed. Double-sided tape will be needed to line the microscope slides and you should
have a pair of scissors handy in order to cut the tape. Lastly, a semi-permanent marker will be
needed in order to label the microscope slides so that the solutions do not get mixed up.
However, don’t forget safety. You should wear goggles, a lab coat, and gloves, and if you have
long hair you need a hair tie. In order to get rid of the material once the experiment is completed
use Hazard Waste Disposable bags.
Procedure: Once you have collected all of the materials it is time to begin the experiment. First
and foremost, gather 4 beakers and label them 0%, 2%, 4%, and 8%. Then in order to make the
saline solution for the 0% all you have to do is put 100 ml of dechlorinated water into a beaker.
Then to make the 2% for the rest of the NaCl solutions mixed the right amount of NaCl in
dechlorinated water to make these solutions. Then place 30 ml of NaCl solution into each petri
dish using a pipette. Don’t forget to alternate pipettes after each use. Then place small strips of
double-sided tape onto the 4 microscope slides. Then use a paintbrush to collect brine shrimp
cysts from a brine shrimp bag. Then place each of the microscope slides under a microscope and
count the number of cysts for each solution. Then after 24 hours check the slides again and count
the number of cysts, hatched brine shrimp, and dead cysts. In addition, remove the dead cysts.
Then do the same thing again after 48 hours. Finally, collect the data within a chart.
Hinckley 46
% Hatching Viability at Each Salt Concentration
Group 0% 2% 4% 8%
Your DATA 0 25 30 38.1
A 0 22 31 40
B 1 21 34 41
C 0 24 33 42
D 2 22 30 41
E 1 24 31 40
Mean .667 23 31.5 40.35
STDEV .816 2.4 1.64 1.33
2 SEM .667 1.96 1.34 1.09
0 Hrs 24 Hrs 48 Hrs
% # # # Dead or # # Dead or # %
# Cysts
NaCl Cysts Cysts partially swimming partially swimmi Hatching
Hinckley 47
hatched hatched ng Viability
0 23 18 5 0 13 5 0 0
2 20 16 2 2 11 2 3 25%
4 20 17 1 2 12 1 4 30%
8 21 18 0 3 13 0 5 38.1%
(THE ERROR BARS ARE ON THE VIRTUAL LAB, THEY WOULDN” T
TRANSLATE TO GOOGLE DOCS FROM GOOGLE SLIDES)
Discussion: After close examination of this experiment, I have found that brine shrimp cysts that
were in the solution with a NaCl concentration of 8% had higher hatching viability than the rest
Hinckley 48
of the NaCl concentrations. During the experiment the 0% NaCl solution caused 10 cysts to die.
This is partially due to the fact that the cysts were submerged within a hypotonic environment.
Meaning that the cysts that are most likely swelled and lysed, eventually causing them to pop
and die. In the NaCl concentration of 2%, some cysts died while others survived which is
partially due to instability within the environment which is the same for the NaCl concentration
of 4%. However, the NaCl solute of 8% was the perfect environment for the brine shrimp cysts
and it was an isotonic solution meaning that the cyst and brine shrimp could thrive. Of course,
like any experiment, there can be multiple different types of errors. One error that could have
occurred is that the brine shrimp cysts could have already been dead or squished in the bag
which could cause them to not hatch leading to results that would be wrong since no brine
shrimp cysts would hatch. Another possible error is that the NaCl solutions were oversaturated
and instead of the salinity being 8% the NaCl concentration would be 12% which could lead to
the cysts shriveling up and dying. Additionally, the beakers could be wrongly labeled leading to
mix-match results that do not add up correctly. In all of these error instances the inaccurate
results could lead to a demolished experiment.
Conclusion: In conclusion, this laboratory experiment supported my hypothesis. I predicted that
the brine shrimp with a salinity of 8% NaCl will have higher hatching viability than the lower
NaCl concentrations. Through close examination, I have found that brine shrimp cyst hatch and
are able to survive in the 8% NaCl solution meaning that a higher salt concentration is better for
the growth and development of brine shrimp. For example, throughout the entirety of the
experiment, the 8% NaCl solution had no dead cysts. However, there were 8 swimming at the
end of the 48 hours and the hatching viability was 38.1%. On the other hand, the 0% NaCl
caused the death of 10 cysts and has a hatching viability of 0%. In addition, the NaCl solution of
Hinckley 49
4% has a hatching viability of 30% and the NaCl solution of 2% has a hatching viability of 25%.
Therefore the NaCl solution of 8% will allow for the survival and development of brine shrimp.
Now, I have a couple of suggestions for this experiment. First and foremost, this experiment
could use a pre-made salt solution so that the salt concentration couldn’t be mixed up causing
weird results. Secondly, the cysts should have been examined for a longer period of time because
there is a possibility of a few cysts hatching later on and some cysts take longer than others.
Lastly, I recommend that the number of cysts should be carefully measured to be the same
amount so that the rate of the cysts hatching can not be due to the number of cysts.
way in which it can be concluded is by using orbeez. Orbeez is just like cysts in a way because
they are originally shriveled up and they will then swell when exposed to water. Then it would be
interesting to see what would happen in different salinities. In addition, the brine shrimp cysts
could be placed into a different solution, containing various substances and concentrations. It
would also be interesting to hydrate the cysts and then place them in the water again to see if the
cysts will become dormant again or if they would die.
This investigation has raised a few questions. First of all, what would happen if the cysts
were placed in a solution of 50% salt, would they shrink even more? Would the outer layer of the
cyst be destroyed? What would happen if a different solution was used in place of the
dechlorinated water? What would happen if the cysts were observed for a longer period of time?
Can brine shrimp survive in the same environment as cysts that have entered a dormant state?
Hinckley 50
A Common Ancestry Between Organisms
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment I did two different experiments. First, I tested 6
different species of animals and compared a human ADH6 amino acid sequence within a BLAST
program which searches throughout the entire internet to find genetic matches and the data can
change over time. Out of the 6 different types of species I have tested I have found that frogs do
not contain the ADH6 amino acid, meaning that they are not related to humans. On the other
hand, chimpanzees had the highest relation to humans and were 96.52% identical. During the
next experiment, I tested cytochrome P450 2D14 isoform 1X in horses. I found that horseflies
had no ancestry with horses and then I found that zebras had the highest similarities with horses.
With that being said, the main goal of this experiment was to find evidence of common ancestry
as well as evolutionary evidence stating that humans have evolved from other species of
organisms.
Introduction: A question was posed during this experiment; do organisms share common
ancestors? This question was then answered by both the experiment involving humans and
ADH6 amino acid sequences as well as cytochrome P450 2D14 isoform 1X in horses. First and
foremost, all organisms have a common ancestor. A common ancestor is a recent ancestor that
can share similar characteristics as the other organism. Structural evidence indicates common
ancestry, the structural evidence is called homologous structures which are characteristics that
are similar in two species. However, analogous structures also exist and do not represent a
common ancestor even though an organism may look alike. This is why this experiment must be
Hinckley 51
done in order to show a common ancestor within humans as well as horses. In addition to this
phylogenetic trees as well as cladograms are able to show common ancestry but with a diagram.
Phylogenetic trees are diagrams that represent the evolutionary history of a group of organisms
using fossils. Cladograms are similar to phylogenetic trees; however, cladograms contain lines
that represent a lineage, and branching points that represent nodes, as well as clades. In
cladograms, the common ancestor is the root of all species. In this scenario, the humans were
being compared to 6 other species in order to test common ancestry and to see what animals the
humans came from first. The species were frogs, cows, rats, chickens, chimpanzees, and rhesus
monkeys. For the experiment using the horse, I used 4 other species which were; horseflies,
alligators, zebras, and squirrels. A null hypothesis for this experiment is that organisms do not
have or share common ancestors, therefore, refuting the idea of evolution. I predict that humans
will be most closely related to chimpanzees and horses will be most related to zebras. This will
then support the idea of common ancestry and evolution.
Materials and Procedures:
Materials: Not many materials are needed during this procedure. For starters, you will need a
laptop that can run programs and functions well. In addition to this, you will need a pen and
paper to record the results of your experiment. This is all you will need to do. Don’t worry about
any safety gear or cleanup since this lab doesn’t require that.
Procedure: Once you have your computer you are ready for procedure 1. For starters, go to
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. There will be a menu that appears on the right-hand side of the page, you
will want to select BLAST. Once you click on blast there will be 4 options; nucleotide BLAST,
Hinckley 52
Protein BLAST, blastx, and tblastn. You should click on the protein BLAST. Then copy and past
the ADH6 amino acid sequence which is (>AAH39065.1 ADH6 protein [Homo sapiens]
MSTTGQVIRCKAAILWKPGAPFSIEEVEVAPPKAKEVRIKVVATGLCGTEMKVLGSKHLD
LLYPTILGHEGAGIVESIGEGVSTVKPGDKVITLFLPQCGECTSCLNSEGNFCIQFKQSKTQ
LMSDGTSRFTCKGKSIYHFGNTSTFCEYTVIKEISVAKIDAVAPLEKVCLISCGFSTGFGAA
INTAKVTPGSTCAVFGLGGVGLSVVMGCKAAGAARIIGVDVNKEKFKKAQELGATECL
NPQDLKKPIQEVLFDMTDAGIDFCFEAIGNLDVLAGRA DSTSLNWLLIIWQRS). Then
type in the organisms box one of the 6 organisms. Make sure the database is set to Reference
Proteins (RefSeq protein). Then make sure the program selection is blastp. You will then click
the BLAST button, this will take a while to load all of your information. After you are done with
this see if the ADH6 gene is present or absent. If it is present add the query cover, e-value, and %
identical. Repeat this step for all 6 species. Then in procedure 2 go to the same website. You will
then type in your desired protein or gene at the top of the search bar. Then a new section will
show up while showing genes and protein. Depending on what you have, choose what category
your selected protein or gene falls into. Then add your animal's name to the search bar along
with the protein/gene and hit search. Then hit FASTA which will show up and give you the
sequence that you need to BLASt the protein/gene and find a common ancestor. Then do the
name thing that you did in the first procedure using BLAST for 4 other species of your choice.
Lastly, create a cladogram for both procedure 1 and procedure 2.

Hinckley 53
Procedure 1:
Organism Present/Absent Query Cover E-Value % Identical
Humans --- --- --- ---
Cows Present 93% 6e-162 79.50%
Rats Present 93% 3e-138 67.03%
Chimpanzees Present 97% 0 96.52%
Chickens Present 96% 4e-132 63.54%
Rhesus Monkey Present 77% 2e-79 90.44%
Frogs Absent --- --- ---
Procedure 2:
Organism Present/Absent Query Cover E-Value % Identical

Hinckley 54
Horses --- --- --- ---
Squirrels Present 100% 0 76.33%
Plains Zebra Present 100% 0 88.36%
Alligators Present 99% 0 55.51%
Horseflies Absent --- --- ---
Discussion: After close examination of this experiment, I have found that both horses and
humans have common ancestors and Horses are most closely related to zebras while humans are
most closely related to chimpanzees. During this experiment, cows were 79.50% identical, rats
were 67.03%, chimpanzees were 96.52%, chickens were 63.54%, rhesus monkeys were 90.44%,
Hinckley 55
and frogs were not related to humans at all. With this being said, since the chimpanzees were the
most similar to humans it means that humans common ancestry is chimpanzees. However,
humans have no relation to frogs meaning that frogs are not a common ancestor. During
procedure 2 squirrels were 76.33% identical to horses, plain zebras were 88.36%, alligators were
55.51%, and horseplies were not related to horses at all. These results show that the most
common ancestor is a zebra in this case while horses do not share ancestry with horse
flies.shrimp cysts and it was an isotonic solution meaning that the cyst and brine shrimp could
thrive. Of course, like any experiment, there can be multiple different types of errors. One error
that could have occurred is that the ADH6 amino acid sequence could have been typed
incorrectly within the system which would make the results unusable from this experiment.
Another error that could have occurred is that the site was having a glitch which made it record
false answers. Next, I could have recorded a different protein sequence in both the 1st and 2nd
procedure because each protein has different types of subscripts that can make this experiment
confusing. In all of these error instances the inaccurate results could lead to a demolished
experiment.
Conclusion: In conclusion, this laboratory experiment supported my hypothesis. I predicted that
humans will be most closely related to chimpanzees and horses will be most related to zebras.
Which will then support the idea of common ancestry and evolution. Through close examination,
I have found that chimpanzees are a common ancestor of humans and zebras are a common
ancestor of horses. For example, throughout the entirety of this experiment chimpanzees had a
high similarity of 96.52% to humans in addition to this with the cladogram the chimpanzees were
the closest to humans out of all the other 6 species. In addition to this during procedure 2, the
Hinckley 56
zebras were 88.36% related to horses which was the highest out of all of the other 4 species.
Also, the cladogram shows common ancestry between the zebra and horse. Now, I have a couple
of suggestions for this experiment. First and foremost, this experiment could have an easier
access code to each protein which would decrease the present for error. Secondly, there could not
have been enough organisms tested and if there were you could find that there are other
organisms more closely related to the organisms stated. Lastly, I recommend that other
organisms could be used such as plants and bacteria to show relations and common ancestor
between all organisms.
way in which it can be concluded is by using other organisms such as fungi, bacteria, and plants
since we have already tested animals. In addition, the plants and other organisms could be
examined by using the same exact BLAST method.
This investigation has raised a few questions. First of all, what would happen if bacteria
were placed in the BLAST system? Next, is it possible for two separate organisms to be 100%
identical without asexual reproduction? Did habitats play a role in the proteins' existence?
Cited Sources:
“Protein BLAST: search protein databases using a protein query.” Protein BLAST: search protein
databases using a protein query,
https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PROGRAM=blastp&PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch
&LINK_LOC=blasthome. Accessed 2 March 2023.

Hinckley 57
Isopod Reactions to Different Environments which includes the
experimentation between a Wet vs. Dry environment as well as an Acidic vs. Basic Environment.
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment I tested two different experiments. First, I placed
ten isopods into a choice chamber for the wet vs. dry experiment. At the 1st minute mark, 7/10 of
the isopods preferred the wet environment and when the ten minutes was up 100% of the isopods
picked the wet environment. Then I placed 10 isopods in an area with one-sided diluted
hydrochloric acid and the other empty. During the one-minute mark 4/10 of the isopods preferred
the acidic environment and when the ten minutes were up 6/10 preferred the acidic environment
meaning that there wasn’t any preference. Overall, the main goal of this experiment was to
determine which environments isopods preferred.
Introduction: A question was posed during this experiment; which environments do isopods
prefer, do they prefer a dry environment over a wet one? Or do they prefer an acidic environment
over a basic one? Isopods go under a plethora of different names but they are most commonly
referred to as rolly pollies. Isopods usually enjoy a habitat that consists of leaf cover, heavy
organic mulch, and rocks. In many cases, isopods prefer soil that is composed of organic matter
such as feces and decomposed animals and stumps because these materials are good for
nutrient-rich soil. However, isopods are usually disastrously affected when the soil is too wet,
tilled, and has an acidic pH. Moreover, isopods are diurnal which means that they prefer to stay
awake during the day and will sleep at night. Also, Isopods are a detriment, meaning that they
Hinckley 58
eat waste detritus, which is organic matter, for energy. In addition to this, Isopods have a very
special way of protecting themselves. When isopods feel threatened they will curl up into a ball
in order to protect themselves. The proximate cause, how something happens, is that something
is disturbing the isopod which acts as a stimulus. Then the ultimate cause, of why something
occurs, is that this action increases the isopod's chance of survival and can protect them against
predators which increases the overall fitness, the ability to survive and reproduce, of isopods. In
this experiment, we will be focussing on how different environments impact isopods. For
example, the wet vs. dry environment could represent the environment in which isopods like to
live because a wet environment is usually depicted by a decent amount of annual rainfall.
Additionally, the acidic vs basic environment could represent the preferred soil pH which can
vary across the world. You may be wondering, what is pH? Well, pH stands for potential
hydrogen, meaning that if something has a higher H+ concentration it will be more acidic
compared to something with a high OH- concentration which would be considered basic. A null
hypothesis for this experiment would be that there would be no difference in which type of soil
environment the isopod will prefer. I Predict that isopods will prefer a wet environment over a dry
environment and that the isopods will prefer soil of a basic pH over an acidic pH.
Materials: Before beginning this experiment you will need some supplies. For starters, you will
need 20 isopods also known as roly-polys which can be found at a pet store or found outside
under rocks and deep within the soil. Next, you will need Petri dishes in order to separate the
isopods into 10 isopods in each dish. In order to transfer to the Petri dishes you will need a
fine-tipped paint brush which can be found at your local arts and crafts store. Then, you will
need two choices: dishes that are important for the experiment in order to test the preferences of
Hinckley 59
the isopods. Now for the basic vs. acidic lab, you will need regular water which will be the basic,
which will also be used during the wet lab, as well as 1% diluted hydrochloric acid for the acidic
side. Now, pipettes will also be used, these pipettes can be normal plastic ones that should be
disposed of at every use to prevent contamination. Additionally, filter paper will be needed
which will be used to hold the liquid solutions for this experiment. Lastly, you should have a
timer on hand which can either be a phone timer or a stopwatch, and make sure it can go up to 10
minutes. However, don’t forget safety. You should wear goggles, a lab coat, and gloves, and if
you have long hair you need a hair tie. In order to get rid of the material once the experiment is
completed use Hazard Waste Disposable bags.
and foremost, gather two Petri dishes and separate a total of 20 isopods into each petri dish so
each petri dish should contain about 10 isopods. Then gather two choice chambers and place the
filter paper on each side of the choice chamber. Now, for the Wet vs. Dry experiments place 5-10
drops of water onto the filter paper on one side while leaving the other side dry. For the acidic vs.
basic experiment drop 5-10 drops of dilute hydrochloric acid onto one side of the other choice
chamber all the while keeping one blank. Then gently add the isopods to each choice chamber by
using a paintbrush which will ensure safe and stress-free transfer for the isopods. Now, for both
of these experiments count the number of isopods in each environment over 1-minute intervals,
and then at 10 minutes stop counting and that will be the end of your observed results. After that,
find the mean of each environment and you will have to calculate the Chi-square value between
expected and observed results.

Hinckley 60
Data Chart One:
Minutes # in Wet Environment # in Dry Environment
1 7 3
2 7 3
3 6 4
4 7 3
5 8 2
6 7 3
7 10 0
8 10 0
9 10 0
10 10 0
Hinckley 61
Chi-Square:
Wet Environment Dry Environment Total
Observed-O 8.2 1.8 10
Expected- E 5 5 10
O-E 3.2 -3.2
(O-E)2 10.24 10.24
(O-E)2/E 2.05 2.05 4.10

Hinckley 62
Data Chart Two:
Minutes # in acidic environment # in basic environment
1 4 6
2 3 7
3 3 7
4 4 6
5 4 6
6 6 4
7 7 3
8 8 2
9 7 3
10 6 4
Hinckley 63
Chi-Square:
Acidic Environment Basic Environment Total
Observed-O 5.2 4.8 10
Expected- E 5 5 10
O-E .2 -.2
(O-E)2 .04 .04
(O-E)2/E .008 .008 .016

Hinckley 64
Procedure 1:
Discussion: After close examination of this experiment, I have found that isopods prefer a wet
environment over a dry one and do not have a preference when it comes to soil pH. During the
wet vs. dry experiment the isopods have shown to favor a more moist environment because when
the during the one-minute mark the 7 isopods were in the moist environment while 3 isopods
were in the dry environment, then at the ten-minute mark 10 of the isopods were in the moist
environment while 0 were in the dry area. On top of this after examination of the Chi-Square the
calculated amount, 4.10 was greater than the degrees of freedom (3.84) meaning that it is true
that isopods prefer a wet environment since the null hypothesis that the difference between the
expected and observed results is due to chance. In addition to this during the acidic vs. basic lab
at the one-minute mark, there were 4 isopods in the acidic environment and 6 in the basic. Then
at the ten-minute mark, there were 6 isopods in the acidic environment and 4 isopods in the base.
This shows that the isopods truly do not care if their environment has an acidic or basic pH.
Additionally, when the Chi-square was completed the calculated value (.016) was less than the
degrees of freedom value (3.84) which means that the null hypothesis of the difference between
observed and expected results is due to change. Overall, this shows that isopods prefer a wet
environment over a dry one and they do not have a pH preference when it comes to soil. Of
course, like any experiment, there can be multiple different types of errors. One error that could
have occurred is that too much water was added during the wet vs. Dry lab making the isopods
stray away from a puddle of water that could kill them. Another error that could have occurred is
that during the acidic vs. basic lab, the pH could be on completely opposite ends of the spectrum
and some substances could have been a little too acidic. Additionally, the isopods could have
Hinckley 65
been stressed out from transportation and didn’t want to move at all or might have died but
seemed to be alive.
Conclusion: In conclusion, this laboratory experiment supported and refuted my hypothesis. I
predicted that isopods will prefer a wet environment over a dry environment and that the isopods will
prefer soil of a basic pH over an acidic pH. The idea of isopods preferring a wet environment over a dry
one was correct. For example, when I tested the Chi-square the null hypothesis was correct which can
allude to my alternative hypothesis being correct. However, I was incorrect when I stated that isopods will
have a preference for a pH level that is basic which is completely wrong because this experiment has
shown me that the isopods do not have a preference for pH. For example, when I tested the Chi-square for
this experiment the null hypothesis was accepted meaning that my hypothesis was refuted. Now, I have a
couple of suggestions for this experiment. First and foremost, this experiment should use cotton
instead of filter paper because filter paper creates a puddled mess while cotton swabs hold
moisture. Secondly, more organisms should have been tested during this experiment for
better-proven results as well as more accurate ones. Lastly, I recommend that the organisms were
kept in quarantine and were in good health before this experiment to ensure that the results
weren’t influenced by the stress of this experiment.
Questions:
There are numerous ways in which this laboratory experiment can be continued. One way in
which it can be concluded is by testing the variables of light and dark during this experiment
with a mixture of wet and dry environments to see if a dark or a light environment more heavily
influences isotopes. In addition, different species of isotopes could be used in order to find out if
the species of isotopes determine their preferences for a certain environment.

Hinckley 66
This investigation has raised a few questions. First of all, what would happen if you put a
few predators of the isopods that favored the wet side and see if the isopods find the moisture to
be necessary? What would happen if the isopods were placed at different temperatures? What if
we were to create mini-ecosystems, which ecosystem would support the isopods?
Cited Sources:
“pillbug - Armadillidium vulgare.” Entomology and Nematology Department,
https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/MISC/Armadillidium_vulgare.htm. Accessed 22
March 2023.
Hinckley 67
Paige Hinckley Lab Write-up #9 March 30, 2023
Using the Mark and Recapture Method in Order to Calculate the Size of a Population
Abstract: During this laboratory experiment IN imitated a laboratory experiment using beans
called the mark and recapture method. First I gathered a handful of beans from a bag, counted
them, and then replaced them with darker-colored beans to represent marked individuals. This
process was then repeated three more times. Through these results, I calculated that the
population size was about 1056 individuals while my estimated population size was only 321.
Overall, the main objective of this experiment was to see the effectiveness of the mark and
recapture method and how a scientist is able to estimate the population size without counting
every single individual within a population.
Introduction: A question was posed during this experiment; is the mark and recapture method a
good and effective way to estimate the population size of wildlife? The mark and recapture
technique is utilized by a plethora of scientists all over the world and is used to estimate the
population sizes of certain species without scientists needing to meticulously count each
individual organism of said species. Scientists use this technique by capturing a bunch of
individuals and then placing harmless tags on them, this number is then recorded. Then scientists
will continuously collect the same species and write down the organisms they mark as Mi which
will increase after each capture period. Then the captured amount would be recorded as Ci and
finally, the number of marked individuals collected would be recorded as Ri. With this method,
scientists are finally able to get a good idea of how large a population is. Additionally, the
Hinckley 68
number of individuals within a population can be calculated by N=MC/R. For example, I
estimated that the population size would be 321 beans while using the mark and recapture
method the population size was 1056 which is a significant difference. Then when I counted the
number of individuals one by one it turns out that there were 7921 individuals. Even Though the
difference is extremely broad the mark and recapture method would be effective it just needs to
go through a series of different rounds. A null hypothesis for this experiment would be that the
mark and recapture method would have no difference in accuracy within the estimated
population size. I Predict that the mark and recapture method will be more accurate than the estimated
population method.
Materials: Before beginning this experiment you will need a few supplies. First and foremost,
you will need a gallon-sized plastic or paper bag in order to buy your bean which will simulate
an environment, this can be found in your local grocery store. Then a measuring cup is needed in
order to scoop the beans from the large bag. More importantly, two different types of beans will
be needed and these will represent the population. Make sure that the two different beans are
about the same shape and size however, they should be different colors. The light beans should
symbolize the population while the dark-colored beans will represent the captured organisms
within the population that have already been marked. Thankfully, no safety equipment will be
needed for this experiment.
and foremost, measure two cups of the light-colored beans and place them in the bag but do not
count them yet, then make an educated guess to see how many beans you have collected. Then
use your hand and grab a handful of light-colored beans and place them out on your desk. The
Hinckley 69
group captured will represent the first group of captured individuals (C1), so then count these
beans and record the number. Now in order to mark the beans that have been captured simply
replace the light-colored beans with the darker-colored ones. This number of beans will now be
the number of marked individuals which will be the M2 value on your chart. Then return the
marked beans to the bag of light-colored beans and shake it well. Then without looking grab
another handful of beans from the bag which will represent the second capture group of
individuals. Then count the number of beans that you have grabbed which will be the C2 value.
Now, in order for you to examine the beans that you have collected you will need to count the
number of marked individuals that you have captured and write the value as R2 in your table.
Then count that number of unmarked light-colored beans and then mark them by replacing them
with dark-colored beans. Record the number of individuals you just marked under the M2
section of your chart which will be the value for M3. Then, return all the marked beans collected
and place them back into the bag of light-colored beans and shake the bag thoroughly. Yet again
you will need to grab a handful of beans from the bag and record the number of beans that you
collected under C3. Then record the number of marked beans which would be R3 and then count
the number of unmarked individuals and mark them by replacing them with dark-colored beans,
record the number just counted under M3, and record the resulting sum under the M4 value.
Without looking, grab another handful of beans and place them on your desk and record this
number as C4. Then count the number of beans that were marked under R4. Now, use the
equation, M2C2+M3C3…/ R2+R3… in order to calculate for N. Finally, count the actual
amount of beans in your bag and record that in table 1 and separate the beans back into their
respective beakers.
Hinckley 70
The mark and Recapture Method using Beans as the Capture Individuals
Sampling # of Marked individuals # of Individuals # of individuals
Time in the Population (Mi) Captured (Ci) Recaptured (Ri)
1 0 132 0
2 132 137 8
3 269 133 43
Estimated Population Size 321
Calculated Population Size 1056
Actual Population Size 7921

Hinckley 71
Discussion: After a close examination of this experiment, I have found that the mark and
recapture method is an effective method in order to predict population size in wildlife. During
this experiment when I estimated the population size I believed that it was about 321 beans,
however, after further experimentation, I found that the actual population size was 7,921 which is
a significant difference. Even though the calculated population was still over 6,000 fewer
individuals it was closer to the actual population size than the actual meaning that the mark and
recapture method is still effective. Of course, like any experiment, there can be multiple different
types of errors. One error that could have occurred is that the mark and recapture method could
have been done far too few times which could make the results not as accurate. Another error
that could have occurred is that the counting may have been a problem since there were so many
beans. Lastly, when calculating the N value there could have been errors with numerical inputs
Hinckley 72
causing false results. Of Course in all of these error instances the inaccurate results could lead to
a demolished experiment.
Conclusion: In conclusion, this laboratory experiment supported my hypothesis; I predicted that
the mark and recapture method will be more accurate than the estimated population method. For example,
when I performed the capture and release method I got a more accurate result of 1056 for the calculated
population size while when I attempted to estimate the population size I had a completely random guess
of 321 beans. Overall, this experiment supports my hypothesis. Now, I have a couple of suggestions
for this experiment. First and foremost, this experiment should have contained more capture and
release experiments, about 10 more, so that the results are more accurate and I would have
probably gotten a result closer to the actual population size. Secondly, Larger beans could have
been used so that this experiment would take less time so I could focus on more experiments.
Lastly, I recommend that there were more dark-colored beans because I eventually ran out which
prevented me from furthering this laboratory experiment.
Questions:
There are numerous ways in which this laboratory experiment can be continued. One way
in which it can be continued is by using more beans to further the results and create a larger
population. Additionally, this laboratory experiment could be continued in the real world using
organisms from a local stream and using a mark and recapture method to estimate the population
size. Also, A small measuring cup could be used to pick the beans out of the bag because it will
represent the meticulousness of the mark and recapture method.
This investigation has raised a few questions. First of all, what would happen if there
were fewer beans within the population? What would happen if living organisms were used for
this experiment compared to the beans tested? What if we were to mimic the real-world
Hinckley 73
conditions of the mark and recapture method and create a laboratory experiment based on that?
Lastly, what would happen if there was a larger variety of beans that represented how many
times the individual had been captured?

Ap Bio Lab Write-Ups From 2022-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ap Bio Lab Write-Ups From 2022-2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ap Bio Lab Write-Ups From 2022-2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main experiments described in the document?

What are the main experiments described in the document?

What are some potential sources of error in the mark and recapture experiment?

What are some potential sources of error in the mark and recapture experiment?

Hinckley 1

By: Paige Hinckley

- The effects of Catalase on the Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide: Pg

- Lights Effect on Photosynthesis using leaf disks: Pg 22-29

- Cellular Respiration: Pg 30-36

- Bacterial Transformation Using of E Coli: Pg 37-42

- NaCl Effect on the growth and Development of Brine Shrimp: Pg 43-49

- A Common Ancestry Between Organisms: Pg 50-56

- Isopod Reactions to Different Environments which includes the experimentation

Paige Hinckley Lab Write Up #1 10/5/2022

Partner: Mikayla Lawrence

Cell Size: An Approach to Understanding a Cell’s Limitations

meaning, the smaller the cell, the more efficient.

to volume of beets to bleach will be.

be the part that is still white.

Data Collection and analysis:

Cube Size Total Unpenetrated Penetrated Percent Surface SA:V

Volume Volume Volume Diffusion Area Ratio

(cm³) (cm³) (cm³) (%) (cm2)

3cm 26.97cm³ 15cm³ 11.97cm³ 44.38% 53.94cm2 2

2cm 5.7cm³ 2.7cm³ 3cm³ 52.63% 17.28cm2 3.08

1cm .64cm³ .384cm³ .256cm³ 40% 4.8cm2 7.5

How I got to that Data:

V=(3)(3.1)(2.9)=26.97 Unpenetrated V= (2.4)(2.5)(2.5)=15 Penetrated V= 26.97-15=11.97

Percent Diffusion: 11.97/26.97= 44.38% SA: (3)(3.1)(6)= 53.94 SAV: 2

can make it hard to cover the entirety of the beet.

Paige Hinckley Lab Write-Up #2 10/31/2022

Partner: Mikayla Lawrence

The effects of Catalase on the Decomposition of Hydrogen Peroxide

concentration on the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Throughout the 2 procedures, I

#1 Materials and Procedure:

touch the hydrogen peroxide solution.

#1 Data Collection and Analysis:

Hydrogen Peroxide Group 1 Group 2 Class Average

0 --- --- ---

0.375 28 seconds 35.62 seconds 31.81 seconds

0.75 17.83 seconds 20.02 seconds 18.925 seconds

1.5 12.77 seconds 14.89 seconds 13.83 seconds

3 8.6 seconds 10.61 seconds 9.605 seconds

#1 Discussion and Conclusion:

absorbed making the reactions take a lot longer than necessary.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the results of this experiment support my hypothesis. I hypothesized

error. Overall, this experiment is very well done.

#2 Materials and Procedure:

coat, and gloves.

#2 Data Collection and Analysis:

Temperature (°C) Initial Volume (cm^3) Final Volume (cm^3) (Final-Initial)

5 20.1 22.2 2.1

20 20.2 36.4 16.2

40 20.0 30.1 10.1

60 20.1 21.0 0.9

#2 Discussion and Conclusion:

this is due to an enzyme's optimal temperature. For example, at a temperature of 5℃ 2.1mL of

fluctuation between results making the results unusable and insignificant.

Conclusion: In conclusion, these results have supported my hypothesis. I predicted that if