Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Pea Plants
Pea Plants
4/15/10
Section 26
The Effects of Gibberellin and Paclobutrazol Hormones on Pea Plants Pisum sativum
Introduction
A hormone is a molecule that produces a signal in one part of an organism and transports
it to another part where it binds to a specific receptor and elicits a response within the cell.
Major plant hormones are auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, brassinosteroids, abscisic acid, and
ethylene. The hormones that were explored specifically in this lab were gibberellins and
paclobutrazol. Gibberellins effect stem elongation, fruit growth, and seed germination, and in
this lab, the focus was on stem elongation. Paclobutrazol is a growth retardant that inhibits
gibberellins.
This purpose of this experiment was to look at the effects of different hormones on
plants. A pea plant was used in this experiment because it grows relatively fast and therefore
growth changes are easier to measure. Gibberellic acid is responsible for stem elongation and
therefore it will increase the length between nodes (internode length). Paclobutrazol hormone is
the antagonist of gibberellins. Paclobutrazol will slow plant growth, thereby decreasing changes
in internode length. The goal of this experiment is to explore the effects of these two hormones
It is predicted that when the pea plants are exposed to gibberellins, the internode length
will increase and when they are exposed to Paclobutrazol, the internode length will decrease.
Also, a plant that receives a higher concentration would be expected to show a larger increase in
internode length changes than a plant that was exposed to a lower concentration of that hormone.
The null hypothesis is that the different hormone treatments do not affect plant growth, so there
is no difference between growth in the control and in the other experimental plants. The
alternative hypothesis is that the hormones do have an effect on plant growth, and therefore the
different exposures should cause some kind of changes between the two experimental groups of
plants.
In this experiment, the class was set up into small groups of 3-4 students. Each group
received 5 plants-1 control plant, 2 that would be exposed to gibberellins first, and 2 that would
be exposed to Paclobutrazol first. It was the students’ decision if they wanted to have a high or
low concentration of the hormone applied to the plants. The plant height and internode lengths
were measured on the first day, and after that, they were measured on the next two Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Thursdays. The experiment was conducted for two weeks total, however, after
the first week, the plants initially exposed to gibberellins were switched to paclobutrazol, and the
plants that were first exposed to paclobutrazol were exposed to gibberellins. The same
concentrations (high or low) that were applied in the first week were also applied in the second
week.
The plants were all kept in the greenhouse and the greenhouse workers watered the plants
and treated the plants with the appropriate hormones for consistency. Data was collected by
visiting the greenhouse and using a ruler to measure the internode lengths and the height of the
plants. If needed, yarn was used to measure the lengths of the plants that did not grow straight
and were difficult to measure. On each of the days, the number of nodes, the length between the
To calculate new internode length between days 0 and day 7, the following equation was
used:
(sum NEW Int L on Day2 + sum NEW Int L on Day4 + sum NEW Int L on Day 7)
( Total # NEW Int L measured on Day2 + Day4 + Day7)
This equation can also be used to find the internode on the other days by substituting data
different days into the equation. 1 To get better results, instead of using independent data from
each group, a set of pooled data from many different groups was used. The purpose of doing this
was to try to eliminate some person mistakes in measurements that may have made and to get a
more representative set of data. Due to poor data, some of the data was removed. Some of the
data had missing measurements for some of the days, or there was a large variance between the
To analyze the data, graphs were used to visually look for comparisons and rough trends
between the data. To simplify the labels for the data, a high concentration is denoted with an
“H” and a low concentration with an “L.” Also, gibberellins labels are shortened to “gib” and
paclobutrazol labels to “pac.” A t-test was used between many different groups to show if there
was any significant data that could be extracted from the lab. In a t-test, a p-value less than .05
indicates that the null hypothesis can be rejected and that the data is significant. This also
implies that the alternative hypothesis can then be supported. If a p-value is greater than .05, the
null hypothesis fails to be rejected. This suggests that there is support for the null hypothesis,
Results
Table 1 shows the t-test values between different groups. Values highlighted in red indicate that the p-value
was below .05. The abbreviation in the label indicates the treatment given in the first week and the second
abbreviation indicates the treatment given in the second week.
Table 2 compares data between 2 weeks. Again, data highlighted in red represent a p-value
below .05.
Figure 1 (above) and Table 3 (below) show the internode lengths at weekly intervals of the different treatments. The pacH/gibH and
pacL/gibL treatments decreased in internode length between week 0-1 and increased in length from week 1-2. GibH/pacH decreased in
internode lengths initially, but there was little difference in internode length from week 1-2. GibL/pacL increased the first week and
decreased the second week. The control showed a slight, steady decrease in internode lengths over the 2 weeks.
Figure 3 compares the average total heights of the plants from both weeks with error bars showing the standard error. The label on the x-axis
represents the first treatment given to the plants. All of the treatments and the control show an increase in height during both weeks.
GibH/pacH grew and
Figure 2 (above) the most
Tableof4 all the treatments
(below) show the and the two
average totallow concentrations
height of the plantstreatment
in weeklygrew to almostThe
increments. the same
heightheight. The pacH/L
of the control increased
treatments
slightly at agrew therate.
steady leastGibH/pacH
in the first week.
steadilyAfter 2 weeks,
increased overthethetreatments
2 weeks. exposed
PacL/gibL to higher concentrations
increased slightly fromofweek
the hormones wereincreased
0-1, and then taller than
those given the treatments
more dramatically with1-2.
from week lower hormone followed
PacH/gibH concentrations.
the same pattern, except the increase in height was more extreme. GibL/pacL
increased between weeks 0-1, and kept increasing between week 1-2, but the increase from week 1-2 was less extreme.
Discussion
In Table 1, most of the p-values exceed .05, however, those highlighted in red (gibL/pacL
and gibH/pacH and the control and gibL/pacL) have p-values that are within the alpha level of
significance. This means that for every piece of data above .05, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that there is no real difference between the two groups being compared,
which makes the data not statistically significant. For the other two values, whose p-value was
below .05, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the data for the groups was
significantly different and that there was an effect on the plant from the hormone. Notice that for
the groups that did have significant results, the gibberellins was the first hormone used.
In Table 2, half of the data turned out to be statistically significant. The t-test for GibH
week 1 and week 2 and pacH week 1 and week2 both yielded a t-test with p-values<.05. This
means that we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the results are statistically significant
and that there is a relationship between the growth from week 1 to week 2 in these two
treatments. In the low concentrations of the hormones, the p-value was greater than .05,
therefore we fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no relationship between
the growths of the plants from week 1 to week 2. The t-test points out that the higher
concentrations of the hormone produced significant results, which implies that the hormone
concentration also plays a role in growth. In both Tables 1 and 2 we should have seen more
statistically significant data, especially in the groups that measured high/low concentrations.
In Figures 1-3, it is expected that when the plants are exposed to gibH/L from week 0-1,
the plant internode length and overall plant height will increase and when exposed to pacH/L
from week 1-2, the internode length and plant height will decrease. Likewise, when exposed to
pacH/L from week 0-1, the internode length/height should decrease and when exposed to gibH/L
in week 1-2, it should decrease. Also, higher concentrations of the hormone should lead to more
dramatic results. So, when exposed to pacH, there should be more of a decrease in internode
length/height than when exposed to pacL and when the plant is treated with gibH, growth should
increase more than it does when it is treated with gibL. The control should grow steadily
In Figure 1 and Table 3, the pacH/gibH and pacL/gibL treatments decreased in length
from week 0-1 and increased from week 1-2 and the results from the higher concentration groups
had more dramatic changes than the results from the lower concentrations. These two treatments
turned out the way they were expected to. In the gibH/pacH treatment, the length decreased
initially when it should have increased, and then after the first week, the internode length stayed
fairly constant, where it should have decreased. GibL/pacL increased the first week in internode
length, and decreased the second week. The control showed a slight, steady decrease in
internode length over the 2 weeks, and it was hypothesized to have a slight, steady decrease over
the 2 weeks.
In Figure 2 and Table 4, the average total heights of the plants are shown in weekly
intervals. The height of the control increases slightly over the 2 weeks at a steady rate, which
was the same as the expected results. GibH/pacH growth also increased over the 2 weeks, but
the growth was more dramatic than the control’s growth. It was expected that during the first
week, with exposure to gibH, the plant should have grown, but during the second week, growth
should have slowed down or stopped. PacH/gibH height increased slightly during week1, and
then increased dramatically during the second week, which was the expected growth. Also,
pacL/gibL followed a similar pattern, except the growth during the gibberellins treatment was
GibL/pacL increased more during week 1 or treatment, but then continued to increase a little
more in height during week 2 as well. The results from the total average heights of the plants
were typical of the expected results, with the exception of the growth of gibH/pacH. Also, the
results expected as far as concentrations received were also in accordance with the expected
values (except for gibH/pacH) where the higher concentrations of the treatments were expected
to experience greater changes in plant height and the lower concentrations were expected to
Figure 3 and Table 4 compares the height differences of the two treatments during the 2
weeks (The initial heights were also included so growth during the first week could be compared
to the plant’s beginning height.). All of the heights increase over the two week period, where the
height was expected to increase when exposed to gibberellins and decrease or stay the same
when exposed to paclobutrazol. As expected, the plants treated with the higher concentrations of
the hormones had the greatest changes in height, and ended up being taller than those treated
with lower concentrations. The two lower concentration plants grew to approximately the same
height, which suggests that the concentration of the hormone had some kind of role in the
growth. The gibH/L treatments grew more in the first week than did the pacH/L treatments and
in the second week the pacH/gibH and pacL/gibL both had dramatic growth. Most of the data in
the figure had outcomes that were expected, with one of the few differences from expectations
being that gibH/pacL experienced a lot of growth during the second week, when growth should
Many other experimenters have also used pea plants as their experimental organisms. In
a 2008 study, there was a group who tested the effects of plant hormones in seedlings. In the
study, there were 4 different sets of seeds which were placed in gibberellic acid for 24 hours, and
there was a control group that was just placed in water. After 14 days, pea shoot length was
measured. In the end, 2 of the 4 groups showed statistically significant results. The researchers
believed that all of the groups should have shown differences in growth and attributed their
results to poor seed quality and premature seed harvesting. The researchers say that experiments
with premature harvesting of dwarf pea plant seedlings and the effects of gibberellic acid on
them are part of their current areas of research.2 Similar to the results found in the lab, the
experimenters found 2 of 4 groups statistically significant (see Table 2). The results found in
this lab may also be attributed to poor plant quality (as well as other reasons), and it was
hypothesized that all of the groups should have shown statistically significant data.
applied to the soil for 10 months and different measurements were taken, including: height,
internode length, circumference of the stem, and the number of leaves. At the end of the study,
there was a 26% average reduction of plant height. This study showed similar trends with the
laboratory exercise. However, the height actually decreased over the course of the study,
whereas in the lab the growth only slowed. In the study however, they reported that, “growth
reduction could be observed 17 days after application of the product,”3 so it may be that the
plants in the lab just were not exposed to the paclobutrazol long enough for it to have a large
The results of this experiment were fairly useful, with a few significant p-values, and
much more data that followed trends of the expected outcomes (these can be found in Figures 1-
3). As with any experiment, better results could result with a longer period of time used for
growth, which is obviously pointed out in the study above, where it took 2.5 weeks of one
treatment to see any changes in growth. More groups pooled together to make the final data set
may yield more significant data, since the data should have more of a normal shape and should
be less skewed due to fewer outliers. Also, if each individual had their own group of plants, the
data would be more useful because it would eliminate that extra factor of measurement error
when different people find the height of the plant. Another variable that was unavoidable, yet
may have affected the growth of the plants was the fact that some plants just do not experience
growth as much as other plants, or it is possible that throughout the course of the 2 weeks that the
plant became damaged and growth was affected because of that. Even if the experiment was
carried out for one more week, any trends in the results may have been clearer, so future
experiments could have 3 weeks of observations with two measurements taken per week so that
This experiment and other similar experiments may be useful in further exploring the
effects of plant hormone and the way hormones work that are inside of plants. Since not much is
currently known, and research on plant hormones is a new and growing trend, further exploration
with plant hormones and plant growth may help us further understand how plants work.
Research in this area may also help suggest ways that plants can be
that can grow taller or shorter or just grow in different ways in general may be able to support
more edible items and therefore may give off more products. Also, this alteration in growth may
be something that people are interested in having around their homes just for aesthetic reasons.
The study of plant hormones and growth could be beneficial to humans in many ways.
References
1.Nelson K, and Burpee D (2010) Control of Plant Hormones and Tropisms. (Department
of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University).
3.Maia E, Siqueira DL, Salomão LC, Peternelli LA, Ventrella MC, Cavatte RP (2009)
Development of the banana plants 'Prata Anã' and 'FHIA-01' under the effect of