Product Analysis Experiment,

0 / 5. 0

Product Analysis Experiment,

Category: Book Review

Subcategory: Earth Science

Level: College

Pages: 2

Words: 550

HORT 116 – PLANT SCIENCE Product Analysis EXPERIMENT
Students Name:
Institution Affiliation:

Introduction
The purpose of this research is to certify the claim by the AquaSmart pro company in enhancing soil-water retention capacity. The null and the alternative hypothesis for this experiment will be as follows
H0 – AquaSmart Pro enhance the water retention capacity of different types of soil.
H1 – AquaSmart Pro does not enhance the water retention capacity of different types of soil.
µ0 – mean for the control (without the treatment)
µ1 – mean of treatment (T-1 1.5 TBSP)
µ2 – mean of (T-2 0.5 TBSP)
A control experiment is conducted alongside the tests to limit the type 1 and type 2 errors in the experiment. The six days of the assignment produced the results as indicated below. Starting with the first day
  Date: 6/17/15 Measurements
  Drainage Collected in mL
Row I.D./Treatment Pot #1 Pot #2 Pot #3 Pot #4 Pot #5 Pot #6 Avg.
CONTROL 6.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 25.00 8.67
               
T-1 (1.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.67
               
T-2 (.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00 5.00 2.67
Table 1.
H0 – µ0 > µ1 and µ0 > µ2
H1 – µ0 = µ1 and µ0 = µ2
The average graph is as shown028702000
The able and the graph for the second day are as follows
  Date: 6/24/15 Measurements
  Drainage Collected in mL
Row I.D./Treatment Pot #1 Pot #2 Pot #3 Pot #4 Pot #5 Pot #6 Avg.
CONTROL 62.00 40.00 50.00 68.00 90.00 81.00 65.17
               
T-1 (1.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 66.00 66.00 45.00 27.00 35.00 76.00 52.50
               
T-2 (.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 88.00 71.00 65.00 14.00 67.00 88.00 65.50
Table 2.
H0 µ0 > µ1 and µ0 > µ2
H1 – µ0 = µ1 and µ0 = µ2
In addition, the graph for the average measuments are as shown,
left53100
For the third day, the following table represented the table for the data
  Date: 6/30/15 Measurements
  Drainage Collected in mL
Row I.D./Treatment Pot #1 Pot #2 Pot #3 Pot #4 Pot #5 Pot #6 Avg.
CONTROL 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 30.00 46.00 19.67
               
T-1 (1.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 37.00 110.00 31.00 33.00 27.00 21.00 43.17
               
T-2 (.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 82.00 100.00 26.00 8.00 40.00 66.00 53.67
Table 3.
H0 – µ0 > µ1 and µ0 > µ2
H1 – µ0 = µ1 and µ0 = µ2
Moreover, the chart for the table is s shown
028956000
The fourth table is as given in the next page together with the graph.
  Date: 7/8/15 Measurements
  Drainage Collected in mL
Row I.D./Treatment Pot #1 Pot #2 Pot #3 Pot #4 Pot #5 Pot #6 Avg.
CONTROL 49.00 15.00 54.00 18.00 43.00 50.00 38.17
               
T-1 (1.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 9.00 38.00 22.00 21.00 30.00 40.00 26.67
               
T-2 (.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 65.00 52.00 17.00 16.00 13.00 37.00 33.33
Table 4.
H0 – µ0 > µ1 and µ0 > µ2
H1 – µ0 = µ1 and µ0 = µ2
In addition, the graph is as shown 028638500
The fifth table is as shown
  Date: 7/13/15 Measurements
  Drainage Collected in mL
Row I.D./Treatment Pot #1 Pot #2 Pot #3 Pot #4 Pot #5 Pot #6 Avg.
CONTROL 86.00 25.00 53.00 50.00 20.00 32.00 44.33
               
T-1 (1.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 8.00 13.00 39.00 24.00 1.00 11.00 16.00
               
T-2 (.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 65.00 76.00 48.00 35.00 52.00 55.00 55.17
Table 5.
H0 µ0 > µ1 and µ0 > µ2
H1 – µ0 = µ1 and µ0 = µ2
In addition, the bar graph for the table is as follows028702000
The sixth and last table and graph were as shown
  Date: 7/22/15 Measurements
  Drainage Collected in mL
Row I.D./Treatment Pot #1 Pot #2 Pot #3 Pot #4 Pot #5 Pot #6 Avg.
CONTROL 120.00 125.00 108.00 145.00 150.00 156.00 134.00
               
T-1 (1.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 28.00 18.00 130.00 140.00 110.00 152.00 96.33
               
T-2 (.5 TBSP AquaSmart) 183.00 200.00 65.00 50.00 161.00 183.00 140.33
               
Table 6.
H0 – µ0 > µ1 and µ0 > µ2
H1 – µ0 = µ1 and µ0 = µ2
left57600
Materials and methods.
For the purpose of conducting this experiment, AquaSmart Pro, pepper seeds, 24-6” pots, soil, fertilizer, measuring spoons, measuring cups, pot labels, water, timer and 600 ml beakers were used. Test on AquaSmart ability to enhance soil water retention capacity is tested through introduction of different amount into the soil and using a control experiment.
Three rows with six pots each filled with the same amount of soil and fertilizer one without the AquaSmart, another with 1.5 TBSP and the other with 0.5 TBSP were set up. In each pot, three pepper plants were planted and later thinned to have one pepper per pot. All the pots were watered with 12oz and drained water collected and recorded for each pot. Weekly data collection was done and fed appropriately in the pre-designed template for the six weeks period.
The average drainage for the six weeks is as shown in the table below,
Date Control T-1 (1.5 TBSP AquaSmart) T-2 (0.5 TBSP AquaSmart)
6/17/15 8.67 0.67 2.67
6/24/15 65.17 52.50 65.50
6/30/15 19.67 43.17 53.67
7/8/15 38.17 26.67 33.33
7/13/15 44.33 16.00 55.17
7/22/15 134.00 96.33 140.33
Table 6.
Results.
The T-2 had greater drainage most of the times 4 in 6 times with 65.50, 53.67, 55.17, and 140.33. T-1 had only one instance with drainage greater than the control while the control had two instances 8.67 and 38.17 greater drainage than T-2. All the pots with treatment 1 drain less water than those under treatment 2.
028702000
Conclusion
Increase for AquaSmart in the soil significantly increase the water holding capacity. We therefore reject the alternative hypothesis that that AquaSmart does not increase the soil water holding capacity in treatment T-1 and conclude that the soil additive enhances the ability to hold water. For the treatment T-2, the treatment is much similar to the control with equal water retention capacities. In this case, the alternative hypothesis is true that there is no significant difference in the soil-water retention capacity and, therefore, AquaSmart is not effective in this proportion. We thus reject the null and accept the alternative hypothesis that 0.5 TBSP of AquaSmart is not effective in enhancing the water retention capacity of a soil sample. The conclusion are drawn from the fact that all the samples with more TBSP drain less water than those with less.