Hyung Su Han

Partners: Emily Sellinger, Brittany Barney, Zoe Yuan, Sala Woo

Group Name: BEHSZ
TA : Wilfried Guiblet
Bio 220W Section 12
Date : 4/20/16

The Effects on Growth of Salvinia Minima and Lemna

Minor under the Abundance of Nutrients; Nitrogen.

Introduction
~1~

The world is filled with plants and as generations have passed the use of plants has
also evolved. Some plants are used as fuel, food, medicine, structural material and even
substances to clear wastes produced by industries. Hassan and his coworkers have had
experiments on the cultivation of medicinal plants to see if fertilized-induced plants would
help the growth of rare medicinal plants.4 They performed this experiment because of the
increasing need for medicinal plants and the limited amount found. They were able to
cultivate wild growing medicinal plants as a result. Some advantages they found from this
experiment was an increased amount of supplies of the medicinal plant and the rate of miss
identifying the medicinal plant were low.4
Phytoremediation contains several different types including phytodegradation,
phytostimulation, phytovolatilization, phytoextraction, rhizofiltration, and phytostablization.
Related to the experiment is the use of phytofiltration. This method of phytoremediation is
done through the plant roots and seedlings which when placed in the aqueous wastes
collects and removes the waste components. 6 For a plant to be used for phytoremediation,

it must be cost effective and have a substantial growth rate. Due to the factors of being cost
effective and exponentially growing, phytoremediation can be used even in places where it
contains low concentration of contamination in a large area.2
The objective of this experiment was to determine factors of growth on Salvinia
minima. These plants are tested whether or not they were suitable for use in Phytoremediation
which is fast growing, cost friendly, and has the ability to take up aqueous waste. The purpose
of experiment 1 was to see how each Salvinia minima would grow under normal conditions
without being tampered; only having the sun light and water. The hypothesis is that they will
grow and at a steady pace. Experiment 2 was to determine how the growth rate of Salvinia
minima would be effected under the presence of nutrients, which were phosphorous and
nitrogen. It is hypothesized that both nutrients will help the plants grow, so the results would

~2~

be the increase in growth rate compared to the growth rate of experiment 1. The main focus
of group BEHSZ was experiment 2, the effect of nitrogen on the growth rate of Salvinia
minima.

Materials & Methods

For experiment 1, all 5 groups did the exact same procedure with the plant species
the group was going to work on with either experiment 2 or 3. In the labeled 10 oz plastic
cups, the cups were filled with artificial pond water. 12 individual plants, Salvinia minima
was placed in the cup that was labeled 12 plants. 24 individual plants were placed in the cup
that was labeled 24 plants. The controls for experiment 1 were to keep the conditions of water
at its standard. The independent variable was water and the dependent variable was leaf
numbers.5 Two cups, were placed inside the greenhouse at a given space. For these two cups,
water was given 2 times a week with an odd schedule where for the first week the plant was
watered on Monday and Friday and during the second week the plant was watered on
Tuesday and Thursday.5 The number of plants were counted once a week by the same person,
and recorded onto tables. The data was recorded online per group. The data will be analyzed
in table forms, pictures, and graphs.
Experiment 2 involved the growth rate of 24 Salvania minima under the condition of
Nutrients.5 The controls for experiment 2 were water and sunlight. Independent variables was
the nutrient added which was nitrogen. The dependent variable was the growth of the plant
under these conditions. The counting was done once a week and watering to each cup was
done 2 times a week just like experiment 1. Nutrient nitrogen was added every Thursday and
Friday when the water was added. This data was collected and recorded.

Results
~3~

Table 1: Experiments 1s average # of plant thalli in standard condition7

Group

Starting

Day

Day

Day

Day

Day

amount

14

21

28

24 plants

85.3

136

192

264.3

Plant species
Name
Salvinia
Salvinia
minima
Table 2: Experiment 2s average # of plant thalli with addition of Nitrogen7
Group

Starting

Day

Day

Day

Day

Day

amount

14

21

28

24 plants

67.3

126

236.3

303

Plant species
Name
Salvinia
Salvinia
minima

Thalli Number of Salvinia for experiment 1 and 2 versus Time in standard water
350
300

Experiment 2 Salvinia with

250 f(x) = 8.56x + 48.27 Nitrogen
f(x) = 6.21x + 71.53 Linear (Experiment 2
200
Salvinia with Nitrogen)

Number of Salvinia Thalli 150

Experiment 1 Salvinia
Control

100

Linear (Experiment 1
Salvinia Control)

50
0

0 10 20 30

Time in days

Graph 1: # of Salvinia minimas thalli in experiment 1 and 2 versus Time in standard

conditions7

~4~

ln(N) Salvinia for experiment 1 and 2 versus Time for control

6
5

f(x)
f(x) =
= 0.06x
0.04x +
+ 4.18
4.41

Experiment 2 Salvinia with

Nitrogen

Linear (Experiment 2
Salvinia with Nitrogen)

lN(N) of Salvinia 3
2

Experiment 1 Salvinia
Control

Linear (Experiment 1
Salvinia Control)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Time in days

Graph 2: The ln(N) of Salvinia minima for experiment 1 and 2 versus Time in standard
conditions7

f(x) =

of Salvinia for experiment 1 and 2 versus Thalli number of Salvinia for experiment 1 and 2
1.65
1.6
1.55

f(x) = - 0x + 1.74

Linear (Experiment 2
Salvinia with Nitrogen)

1.5

of Salvinia 1.45

Experiment 1 Salvinia
Control

1.4
1.35

Linear (Experiment 1
Salvinia Control)

1.3
1.25

Experiment 2 Salvinia with

Nitrogen

0 100 200 300 400

Thalli number of Salvinia

Graph 3: of Salvinia minima versus the number of Salvinia minima in standard conditions7

The graph 1 shows that at first the growth count was higher for that of experiment 1,
however as the time goes and gets to about 13 days the growth rate for Experiment 2 exceeds
that of experiment 1 and starts to show an exponential growth whereas experiment 1 shows a
steady positive linear growth.

~5~

A similar trend is seen in graph 2 where at first the experiment 1s line for ln (N) vs
Time seems to be higher, yet around day 13 the line for experiment 2 seems to be higher. In
experiment 2, it had a higher slope of 0.0558 compared to experiment 1s slope of 0.0403.
According to graph 2 the rmax for Salvinia minima in experiment 1 would be 0.0403
and the rmax for Salvinia minima in experiment 2 would be 0.0558. As the number of Salvinia
minima equals the carrying (N = K), the equals 1( = 1). According to graph 3 the carrying
capacity of Salvinia minima in experiment 1 is 369.35 [(1= -0.002 X + 1.7387) = N = K = [(1
1.7387) / -0.002]]. The carrying capacity according to graph 3 for Salvinia minima in
experiment 2 is 330.08 [(1= -0.0037 X + 2.2213) = N = K = [(1 2.2213) / -0.0037]].

Conclusion/Discussion
One of the main reasons these experiments were performed was to see if the plants
were fit for the use of phytoremediation. Phytoremediation needs to be cost effective and the
plants used for phytoremediation needs to have a good growth rate. For the original
experiment the data does not support that fact that growth rate increases and this was
estimated to be due to the problems with the water that was given to the plants or that there
existed a bug that was killing off all the other plants. So according to the data, both
experiments supported that Salvinia minima are fit for being used in phytoremediation based
on growth rate alone. The Salvinia minima for both experiments seemed to grow at an
increasing rate as time passed thus providing some evidence that the hypothesis was correct
that when the plants are provided with nutrients such as nitrogen, the plant growth would
increase. Since phytoremediation is a natural cause, it is environmental friendly and also the
cost compared to engineering-based purification is much cheaper.
The original hypothesis stated for the first experiment was that the growth of
Salvinia minima would steadily increase. The data does support this hypothesis by giving a

~6~

slight increase in the amount of Salvinia minima with a positive linear line indicated on graph
1 and in numbers on according to table 1 and graph 1.
The second hypothesis states that nitrogen will help with the growth rate of Salvinia
minima thus increasing the amount of thalli-which is the amount of leaves on the Salvinia
minima. This hypothesis was also supported because the data for experiment 2 displays an
increase in the amount of Salvinia minima exponentially according to graph 1. Thus
indicating that when in the presence of nitrogen the growth rate of Salvinia minima increases
giving it a positive effect on growth rate. So comparing the results of experiment 1 and
experiment 2 it can be said that the hypothesis that experiment 2 would have a larger growth
rate compared to that of experiment 1 matched. It is possible to say that nitrogen controls an
important

part

to

the

growth

of

Salvinia

minima

making

it

suitable

for

bioremediation/phytoremediation.
The carrying capacity for experiment 1 and 2 were 369.35 and 330.08 respectively.
So if more time was taken to observe the growth of both experiment, there would not be an
increase in the amount of total thalli. This could be due to the rate of thalli dying equaling the
rate of thalli reproducing.
Some possible errors that might have occurred is assumed to come from the sources
of growth such as the different amount of sunlight exposed to each plant. Other natural
sources such as the plant dying due to an illness can cause different statistics for this
experiment since it deals with the number of plants grown in a given specific time. Also the
algae and browning of the Salvinia minima due to caterpillars might have affected the results.
In the book Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, Salvinia minima suits perfectly for
aquatic phytoremediation. The book states that Salvinia minima compared to another plant
tested for phytoremediation Spirodela polyrrhiza has a 1.5 times better growth rate in Hunter
Medium and a 2.3 times better growth rate in high-strength synthetic organic wastewater.3

~7~

Looking at these books and combining them with the experimental results, it is highly
possible that Salvinia minima is perfect for aquatic phytoremediation. Plant physiologist Leon
and molecular biologist David Garvin indicates that all plants have their own unique amount
of metals they can take.1 These differences combined with the effectiveness of each plant in
the uptake of contamination needs to be further experimented. Some future studies that could
be suggested would be to increase the ways to find how to amply the amount of storing for
the wastes and to manipulate the plant for it to optimized the plant growth rate, such as
growing the plant in a CO2 concentrated area.

References
1

David Garvin, Leon Kochian. Phytoremediation: Using, Plants To Clean Up Soils.

~8~

United states

department

of

Agriculture.

Web.

March

17,

2016

<http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/ar/archive/jun00/soil0600.htm>
2

EPA. Using Phytoremediation to Clean Up Sites. United states Envirnomental

Protection

Agency.

Web.

Feb

3,

1999

<http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/news/phyto.htm>
3

Eugenia J. Olguin, Gloria Sanchez-Galyan, Teresa Perez-Perez. Assessment of the

Phytoremediation Potential of Salvinia minima Baker Compared to Spirodela
polyrrhiza in High-strength Organic Wastewater. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
May 2007, Volume 181, Issue 1-4, pp 135-147

Hassan Azaizeh, Predrag Ljubuncic, Irina Portnaya, Omar Said, Uri Cogan, and Arieh
Bomzon. Fertilization-induced changes in growth parameters and antioxidant
activity of medicinal plants used in traditional Arab Medicine. Evid Based
Complement Alternat Med. Dec 2005; 2(4): 549-556. Oct 17, 2005.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1297504/>

Burpee, D., Richter, K., Ikis, D., and C. Hass, eds. A Laboratory Manual for Biology
220W: Populations and Communities. 2016. Department of Biology, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Mohammad lqbal Lone, Zhen-li He, Peter J. Stoffella, and Xiao-e Yang.
Phytoremediation of

heavy metal polluted soils and water: Progresses and

perspectives J Zhejiang Univ.

Sci B. Mar 2008; 9(3): 210-220.

< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2266886/>
7

Guiblet, Wilfried, Penn State biology 220 w course, Class data, Salvinia counts, 2016.

~9~