Why would smaller seeds be more sensitive to saline water than larger seeds?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rowkem
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Water
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on an experiment comparing the sensitivity of small and large seeds to saline water, revealing that smaller seeds exhibited shorter radicles than larger seeds when exposed to salt. The original poster expresses confusion about why smaller seeds are more sensitive, suggesting a higher concentration of NaCl per mass unit for smaller seeds. However, participants question the experimental design, emphasizing the need for control groups to accurately assess the impact of saline exposure on radicle length. They argue that comparing radicle lengths without controls does not provide conclusive evidence of sensitivity differences. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of proper experimental controls in seed sensitivity research.
rowkem
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
So, we did an experiment where we exposed two different sizes of seeds to varying concentrations of salt water. The "small" seeds had, on average, shorter radicles than the larger seeds. So, it seems that smaller seeds are more sensitive to the saline solution.

I'm just a little confused as to why. All the lit. I've looked at doesn't seem to explain why such a thing occurs. I've assumed that there is more NaCl per mass unit for the smaller seeds but, that's as far as I've got it. Please help and cite sources used, if any. Thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Think about it for a bit.
If you put a drop of saline solution in a cup of water and in a gallon of water, which one has the higher concentration of saline? Even if it's a drop, the cup of water has the higher concentration in comparison to the gallon.
Same thing with the seeds
 
rowkem said:
So, we did an experiment where we exposed two different sizes of seeds to varying concentrations of salt water. The "small" seeds had, on average, shorter radicles than the larger seeds. So, it seems that smaller seeds are more sensitive to the saline solution. I'm just a little confused as to why.

Your confused? I'm confused by your description.:confused:
Were you exposing small versus large seeds (not seedlings) to differing concentrations of NaCl? You mention the small seeds on average, had shorter radicles. Was that compared to a control group of small seeds unexposed to NaCl? Same question goes for the larger seeds, were you comparing them to a control group?
 
Ouabache said:
Your confused? I'm confused by your description.:confused:
Were you exposing small versus large seeds (not seedlings) to differing concentrations of NaCl? You mention the small seeds on average, had shorter radicles. Was that compared to a control group of small seeds unexposed to NaCl? Same question goes for the larger seeds, were you comparing them to a control group?

So, we were using ungerminated seeds for the experiment. The comparison to radicle length was made between the two types of seeds. The smaller seeds had longer radicles compared to the larger seeds; given equal exposure to an NaCl concentration.
 
If that's teh way experiment was done it doesn't prove anything. It seems rather obvious that smaller seeds will have smaller radicles and larger seeds will have larger ones, regardless of water used. That's why Ou asks about the control group - you should put identical small/large seeds in normal water to be able to compare their radicles with these of seeds put in salty water.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
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...
Back
Top