Analysis
Original Hypothesis: Animal and/or Insect pollen will be bigger, much more rigid and sticky, so it has a better chance of sticking to its subject, while wind dependent pollen will be lighter, smoother, and much smaller making it able to travel far in the wind.
Throughout this research project we found that the pollen morphology of the Daisy (Bellis perennis) was much more rigid and spiky. All of our background research and microscope usage supported our hypothesis in this sense, because we knew that the Daisy depended on an insect to carry its pollen to another flower, therefore giving it the duty to make the surface of its pollen grain one that can easily stick onto its pollinator. As for the Fuchsia (Fuchsia magellanica) we thought its pollen grains would also be more rigid in order to make it easy to stick onto its pollinator, but what we found was not quite the same. Instead it was more smooth and round, but while looking at our background research on the Fuchsia we began to understand why this might be: because instead of depending on its pollen to strongly attach onto its pollinator, it depends more on the pollinator shaking some of it off the anther and having it land onto their body while the pollinator is feeding, creating that cycle of pollen transportation and flower reproduction. As for the morphology of our wind dependent plant; False Cedar (Cedrus deodara) we were spot on when guessing its shape. After taking multiple pictures of the pollen and using the SEM, we found that the pollen grains were in fact very small, slim and round, making it easier to catch a drift of wind for transportation to its pollination destination.
Our team assumed that the Fuchsia and Daisy would be more closely related to each other rather than being related to the False Cedar, which turned out true considering that they are both angiosperms and rely on pollinator, while the false cedar is a gymnosperm who relies on the wind as its pollinator. But what came to us as a semi-shock was that the False Cedar and Fuchsia were more closely related to each other rather than the Fuchsia and the Daisy when the morphology of the pollen grain was the determining factor. This was because of the slim, round shape of the Cedar and Fuchsia pollen grains compared to the spiky, rigid morphology of the Daisy pollen.
All in all, our data has answered all of our questions and given us even more information that we ever expected and our hypothesis was supported to some extent, but the morphology of the Fuchsia pollen was our only misjudgment.
Throughout this research project we found that the pollen morphology of the Daisy (Bellis perennis) was much more rigid and spiky. All of our background research and microscope usage supported our hypothesis in this sense, because we knew that the Daisy depended on an insect to carry its pollen to another flower, therefore giving it the duty to make the surface of its pollen grain one that can easily stick onto its pollinator. As for the Fuchsia (Fuchsia magellanica) we thought its pollen grains would also be more rigid in order to make it easy to stick onto its pollinator, but what we found was not quite the same. Instead it was more smooth and round, but while looking at our background research on the Fuchsia we began to understand why this might be: because instead of depending on its pollen to strongly attach onto its pollinator, it depends more on the pollinator shaking some of it off the anther and having it land onto their body while the pollinator is feeding, creating that cycle of pollen transportation and flower reproduction. As for the morphology of our wind dependent plant; False Cedar (Cedrus deodara) we were spot on when guessing its shape. After taking multiple pictures of the pollen and using the SEM, we found that the pollen grains were in fact very small, slim and round, making it easier to catch a drift of wind for transportation to its pollination destination.
Our team assumed that the Fuchsia and Daisy would be more closely related to each other rather than being related to the False Cedar, which turned out true considering that they are both angiosperms and rely on pollinator, while the false cedar is a gymnosperm who relies on the wind as its pollinator. But what came to us as a semi-shock was that the False Cedar and Fuchsia were more closely related to each other rather than the Fuchsia and the Daisy when the morphology of the pollen grain was the determining factor. This was because of the slim, round shape of the Cedar and Fuchsia pollen grains compared to the spiky, rigid morphology of the Daisy pollen.
All in all, our data has answered all of our questions and given us even more information that we ever expected and our hypothesis was supported to some extent, but the morphology of the Fuchsia pollen was our only misjudgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment