Ana Cristina Dahik

INVESTIGATING THE EFFECT OF USING ARTIFICIAL OR

DIRECT LIGHT ON THE RATE OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS

AIM (objective)

• In order to carry out this practical, it is important to identify

firstly, that the problem or research question: How do the different
lights (artificial or natural) affect the growth of beans?
• The purpose of this investigation, is to observe the effect that the
use of artificial light, has on the rate if photosynthesis of ordinary
bean seeds. The type of light will be the main controlled variable of
the practical, along with the number of seeds and the box. On the
other hand the independent variables (which are not controlled) are,
water, temperature, day length, soil and insects.
• In relation to the research question proposed, the hypothesis will be
that the rate of photosynthesis with the use of artificial light will
decrease in relation to the rate of photosynthesis using natural light.

MATERIALS

• Cardboard box, approximately 30×45×25cm³

• Screen
• Plastic bag (to use as a cover)
• Masking tape
• Scissors
• Tissue paper
• Transparent acetate for lid
• 10 plastic cups
• Fertile soil
• 20 non-germinated bean seeds
• Beakers
• Lamp using a 75 watts bulb
• Timer
• Pencil
• Metal stand
• Metric ruler
 • Balance

PROCEDURE

• Building the 2 boxes: this were built, considering the variables that
were important for the investigation due to the fact that if they
were not the same for the box outdoors (natural light) and the box
indoors (artificial light), the results would have been altered, making
it impossible to determine whether such alterations were produced
by the light or by another variable. The variables include; amount of
light exposure, amount and quality of soil, quantity of water,
temperature. Also insect and rain protection were taken into
consideration for the box inside too, since the alterations made to
the box were to have an effect on the final results.
1. Rectangular pieces were cut from two of the sides of the box
(using scissors), to allow ventilation to occur inside de box, the
rectangles were approximately 20×12cm.
2. The empty rectangular pieces were then covered with the
screen, using masking tape, in order to provide protection
from insects, but allowing at the same time the circulation of
air inside the box.
3. The whole box was covered with a plastic bag, to provide
protection from the rain. Rectangular holes were left
uncovered from the plastic bag. The plastic was adhered to
the box by using masking tape.
4. The lid of the box got a rectangular piece removed from it
too, using scissors, and was too covered with a plastic bag, and
in the empty rectangle transparent acetate was adhered using
masking tape. This lid however was not used, due to a failure in
a previous investigation, in which the lid resulted to be an
obstacle in the germination and growth of the seeds.
• Preparing the cups, the soil and the seeds:
1. The 10 white plastic cups were washed up, and dried with
tissue paper.
2. Using the tip of a pencil, a whole was made in the bottom of
each of the cups.
3. Two non-germinated seeds were placed on each of the cups,
covered with approximately 2 cm of soil each.
4. The ten cups were watered with approximately the same
amount of water.
 5. The soil was placed in all the cups, up to when the soil was
approximately 3cm from the cup’s surface.
6. The cups, with the seeds, were left to dry outdoors, for one
day and a half.
7. Five dried up cups were placed in one box, and the other five
in the other box. Tissue paper was placed on the bottom of
each box, under the cups.
8. The indoors box, was placed under the 75 watt bulb lamp. The
lamp was held by a metallic stand inside the laboratory, and
connected to the plug, with the timer connected as well to
control the schedule in which the direct light was to be turned
on and off from 6 am to 6 pm, in an attempt to be close to the
schedule of the natural light.
9. The outdoors box, was placed were sunlight could hit the cups,
under a cement construction, about 1 meter above from the
box, and approximately 30 cm wide, in order to protect it from
the rain, without having to use a lid.
• For ten consecutive days, the 10 cups were watered every day
without exception, using beakers, with approximately the same
amount of water for each plant.
• The ten days the investigation lasted, observations were made
everyday. The observations included counting the number of leaves
per plant, measuring the length of each stem by using an ordinary
metric ruler and recording any other event that seemed relevant for
the investigation. All this was recorded in a results table.
• The eleventh day of the practical, the biomass of each of the plants
was measured. Measuring the biomass of the plants:
1. All the plants were carefully removed from the cups (from the
roots to the leaves).
2. After they were removed from the cups the plants were
washed with water, and dried up with tissue paper.
3. Using the balance the plants were weighed individually and the
measures were recorded to be used as an indirect determinant
of biomass to see how much did the direct light alter the rate
of photosynthesis.
4. The final number of leaves of each plant was also recorded as
a determinant. As well as the final length, using a metric ruler.

RESULT
RESULT TABLES:
 • The first four tables are constructed, in such a way, that the first
line of results always gives the results of plant 1, and the second line
of results gives results for plant 2. Plant one is identified as the one
with the smaller range of length, and leaves.

TABLE 1:
Table recording day by day growth for plants INSIDE

Cup 1 Cup 2 Cup 3 Cup 4 Cup 5

Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth
Day (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

day 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

day 1 0 0 0 0 0
1,8 0 0 0,5 0

day 2 9 4 0 0 0
9 4 1 1 1

day 3 6 2 2 2 2
9 3 4 2 4

day 4 8 5 3 4 3
10 6 6 8 7

day 5 9 2 7 6 6,5
13 9 8 10 8

day 6 7,5 6 4,5 4,5 5,5

8 8,5 6,5 9,5 8

day 7 8 8 5 6 7
9 9 7 8 9

day 8 12 9 9 8 9
15 12 11 13 12

day 9 7 8 8 6 6
10 11 8,5 13 8,5

TABLE 2:
Table recording day by day growth for plants OUTSIDE

Cup 1 Cup 2 Cup 3 Cup 4 Cup 5

Growth Growth Growth Growth Growth
Day (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

day 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

day 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 1

day 2 12 10 12 3 7
12 10 12 5 10

day 3 16 18 18 6 9
16 18 18 9 15

day 4 23 23 23 18 15
25 24 23,5 22 19

day 5 26 26 26 13 18
26 26 26 20 18

day 6 29 23 25 20 27
44 23 26 23 27

day 7 25 25 25 20 24
28 26 26 20 24

day 8 25 24 29 20 30
28 32 30 24 30

day 9 25 24 23 20 30
28 32 23 29 30
TABLE 3:
Table recording day by day number of leaves OUTSIDE

Cup 1 Cup 2 Cup 3 Cup 4 Cup 5

Day Leave # Leave # Leave # Leave # Leave #

day 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

day 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0

day 2 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0

day 3 2 2 0 0 1
2 2 0 0 1

day 4 2 2 2 0 1
2 2 2 0 1

day 5 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 6 1 2 2 2 2
1 2 2 2 2

day 7 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 8 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 9 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

TABLE 4:
Table recording day by day number of leaves INSIDE

Cup 1 Cup 2 Cup 3 Cup 4 Cup 5

Day Leave # Leave # Leave # Leave # Leave #

day 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

day 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

day 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 3 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 4 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 5 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 6 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 7 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 8 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

day 9 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2

TABLE 5: Table recording the average growth of plants

outside
 Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Average
Growth (cm)
day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
day 1 0,8 0 0 0,5 0 0,26
day 2 9 4 1 1 1 3,2
day 3 9 4 4 2 4 5,2
day 4 10 6 6 8 7 7,4
day 5 10 9 8 10 8 9
day 6 8 8,5 6,5 9,5 8 8,1
day 7 9 9 7 8 9 8,4
day 8 15 12 9 13 12 12,2
day 9 10 11 8 13 8,5 10,1

TABLE 6: Table recording the average growth of plants

inside

Plant 1 Plant 2 Plant 3 Plant 4 Plant 5 Average

Growth (cm)
day 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
day 1 1 1 1 0 1 0,8
day 2 12 10 12 5 10 9,8
day 3 16 18 18 9 15 15,2
day 4 25 23 23,5 22 19 22,8
day 5 26 26 26 20 16 22,8
day 6 44 23 26 23 27 28,6
day 7 28 26 26 20 24 24,8
day 8 28 32 29 24 30 28,6
day 9 28 35 23 29 30 29

TABLE 7: Table comparing averages inside and outside

INSIDE OUTSIDE
Average Average
growth growth
(cm) (cm)
0 0
 0,8 0,26
9,8 3,2
15,2 5,2
22,8 7,4
22,8 9
28,6 8,1
24,8 8,4
28,6 12,2
29 10,1

TABLE 7: Comparing final results of biomass, length and

leaves number inside and outside
FINAL BIOMASS LENGTH # of
RESULTS (g) (cm) LEAVES
INSIDE PLANT 1 PLANT 2 PLANT 1 PLANT 2
1 1- 1.0 2-1.0 1-23cm 2-25cm 1-2, 2-2
2 1-1.0 2-1.1 1-26cm 2-24cm 1-5, 2-2
3 1-1.1 2-1.6 1-24cm 2-24cm 1-5, 2-5
4 1-0.8 2-1.0 1-20cm 2-21cm 1-0, 2-5
5 1-2.4 1-16cm 1-5 leaves

OUTSIDE
1 1-0.9 2-2.5 1-9.5cm 2-12.5cm 1-5, 2-5
2 1-0.8 2-0.5 1-7.5cm 2-6.5cm 1-5, 2- 3
3 1-1.7 2-3.1 1-9cm 2-6.5cm 1-5, 2-5
4 1-2.6 2-1.5 1-12cm 2-8.5cm 1-2, 2-5
5 1-1.1 2-1.4 1-7.5cm 2-9cm 1-3, 2-5

RESULTS OBSERVATIONS:

• It is important to mention that from day 5 and on, plants outside

begun to weaken and to decay. Stems started to brake and leaves
looked weak and unstable. Even though they were taller than plants
outside, they were not even able to stand for themselves. Leaves
begun to fall off too. By the last days, plants inside were practically
dead.

GRAPH:
 35

30

25 INSIDE Average
Growth (cm)

growth cm
20

15 OUTSIDE
Average growth
10 cm
5

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Day

GRAPH SHOWING THE COMPARISON OF GROWTH

BETWEEN PLANTS RECEIVING NATURAL LIGHT AND
ARTIFICIAL LIGHT

CONCLUSION
• Looking at the results, it is in a way possible to conclude that the
plants receiving artificial light, begun to grow at a faster rhythm,
and even achieved much higher lengths than the plants receiving
natural light, but around the sixth day, the plants receiving artificial
light were drying up and getting weaker than the plants receiving
sunlight. The plants receiving artificial light only grew tall because
they aimed to reach the sunlight. As the graph shows, plants inside
reached higher lengths, they grew faster and taller than plants
outside, however, they were weaker and unhealthy, while plants
outside were able to maintain certain level of colour and stability
that plants inside did not show. It is possible to say, given the
appearances of the plants both receiving direct light as natural light
mentioned in the observations, that the rate of photosynthesis was
decreased by the artificial light.
• It was before mentioned that the practical showed various
weaknesses, which made it impossible for the investigation to be a
fair test.
• Weaknesses:
1. The measuring system applied was very inexact and open to
lead the final results to mistakes.
2. Plants were not watered strictly equally. Even though the
differences were probably small, this may too have altered the
results.
3. The same instrument was not used for the measures.
4. The lack of a lid in the box outside made the plants vulnerable
to insects.
5. The plants outside were exposed to other factors that the
plants inside were not; wind, insects, different humidity,
different climate, overall different surrounding.
6. Once the two plants had grown, one should have been removed
from the cup, since it made it harder for the results to be
recorded accurately.
7. The plants outside and inside were measured and watered at
different times, which could have also altered the results.
8. The fact that there was shadow covering the plants outside,
meant that at some point of the day this plants were not
receiving sunlight, altering the “equal” light exposure inside
and outside.
• Possible improvements:
 1. Determine a more exact measuring system; perhaps, marking
slightly the point in the stem where the plant stopped growing
so that it is a more precise measurement.
2. Using only one plant per cup since having two made it very
difficult to follow results clearly.
3. Using the same instrument to make the measures to reach
more precise results.
4. Using a lid, this does not have to be of cardboard, maybe
transparent plastic, with small wholes.
5. Determining a more precise schedule, for the watering and the
measuring of the plants.
6. Using the appropriate equipment with measures for the
watering of the plants, this way, plants receive the same
amount of water.
7. Using another material for the boxes, cardboard is very
susceptible to be harmed.
• Overall after doing this investigation twice, and ending up with
curious results, the most reasonable conclusion, is that with the
equipment and infrastructure provided in the school and laboratory,
it is impossible to develop a fair test.