Why Was the Herbaceous Plant Stem Cut Under Red Ink Solution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nicholaschean
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The herbaceous plant stem was cut while immersed in red ink to prevent air pockets that could hinder water uptake. This method ensures better absorption of the ink solution by the plant. The absence of roots makes this precaution particularly important for effective ink uptake. Cutting the stem after immersion could lead to reduced absorption efficiency. Overall, the technique aims to enhance the plant's ability to take in the solution.
nicholaschean
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


The stem of the herbaceous plant was cut while immersed under the red ink solution in the beaker before it was left to stand in the red ink solution, as a precaution while setting up this experiment. Suggest a reason behind it.
Untitled.jpg



Homework Equations


None


The Attempt at a Solution


My attempted answer was that due to the absence of roots, this precaution was taken to ensure that the plant can absorb the red ink.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It could be cut and THEN put into the ink solution. Questions is - why it wasn't done this way, but instead the stem was cut immersed.
 


nicholaschean said:
The stem of the herbaceous plant was cut while immersed under the red ink solution in the beaker before it was left to stand in the red ink solution, as a precaution while setting up this experiment. Suggest a reason behind it.
My attempted answer was that due to the absence of roots, this precaution was taken to ensure that the plant can absorb the red ink.

Firstly I would suggest that you post such questions in the homework section.

I think that this is done to prevent the formation of air pockets which reduce water uptake. However I am not 100% sure.
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

Similar threads

Back
Top