Huang et al 2024a - Revision history

Scipediacontent at 11:20, 2 July 2024

2024-07-02T11:20:30Z

Tomamil: Tomamil moved page Review 855074334749 to Huang et al 2024a

2024-05-17T12:22:25Z

Tomamil moved page Review 855074334749 to Huang et al 2024a

MarcellinoMelika at 19:58, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T19:58:03Z

MarcellinoMelika at 19:49, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T19:49:14Z

MarcellinoMelika at 19:46, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T19:46:17Z

MarcellinoMelika at 19:02, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T19:02:07Z

MarcellinoMelika at 18:50, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T18:50:25Z

MarcellinoMelika at 18:45, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T18:45:13Z

MarcellinoMelika at 18:42, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T18:42:17Z

MarcellinoMelika at 18:24, 13 May 2024

2024-05-13T18:24:18Z

Show changes

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Can Plants Learn? – Auditory Conditioned Learning on ''Cucumis sativus'' Plants'''
+==Abstract==
-<sup>1†</sup>Shi Qi Huang, <sup>2†</sup>Marcellino Melika, <sup>3†</sup>Tian Gao, <sup>4</sup>Lingyan Wang, <sup>5</sup>Jessica Cohen
+Previous studies show that plants can recognize and respond to different sounds, such as insect-chewing and running water. Prior research demonstrated that plants can learn and respond to stimuli like touch; it is unclear if plants can have a conditioned response to sound. Our former study found that plants can recognize the sound of stream water (SW) and continue growing throughout drought. Experimentation aimed to investigate if ''Cucumis sativus ''plants can grow throughout drought when conditioned to associate non-water sounds to the sound of water. The hypothesis was that cucumber plants would respond to sounds besides SW after auditory conditioning. Some groups were given a training phase (TP) to help them develop an association between their chosen sound and watering session, while others were not given a TP. After the TP was concluded, all groups went into drought stress, while still being exposed to sound. Control groups had no exposure to sound at all. Shoot lengths, leaf lengths, and chlorophyll contents were collected throughout and at the end of the experiment. Overall, groups with rock music (RM) and TP and the sound of water with or without TP had a visible increase in growth, while RM without TP had comparable results to control. Future research will determine if the ability of plants to respond to auditory conditioned learning is altered depending on the time of training relative to the stages of a plant’s life cycle, similarly to a person’s capability to learn and develop at different stages of life.
-−
-<nowiki>                                                                                                              </nowiki><sup>1</sup>shiqihuang217@gmail.com, <sup>2</sup>melika.k.marcellino@gmail.com, <sup>3</sup>tiag2292@gmail.com,
-−
-<sup>4</sup>lwang10@schools.nyc.gov, <sup>5</sup>jcohen53@schools.nyc.gov
-−
-<nowiki>                                                                                                                        </nowiki><sup>†</sup>These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
-−
-Francis Lewis High School, Queens, New York, USA
-−
-'''Abstract''' – Previous studies show that plants can recognize and respond to different sounds, such as insect-chewing and running water. Prior research demonstrated that plants can learn and respond to stimuli like touch; it is unclear if plants can have a conditioned response to sound. Our former study found that plants can recognize the sound of stream water (SW) and continue growing throughout drought. Experimentation aimed to investigate if ''Cucumis sativus ''plants can grow throughout drought when conditioned to associate non-water sounds to the sound of water. The hypothesis was that cucumber plants would respond to sounds besides SW after auditory conditioning. Some groups were given a training phase (TP) to help them develop an association between their chosen sound and watering session, while others were not given a TP. After the TP was concluded, all groups went into drought stress, while still being exposed to sound. Control groups had no exposure to sound at all. Shoot lengths, leaf lengths, and chlorophyll contents were collected throughout and at the end of the experiment. Overall, groups with rock music (RM) and TP and the sound of water with or without TP had a visible increase in growth, while RM without TP had comparable results to control. Future research will determine if the ability of plants to respond to auditory conditioned learning is altered depending on the time of training relative to the stages of a plant’s life cycle, similarly to a person’s capability to learn and develop at different stages of life.
 '''Keywords:''' Auditory, conditioned, learning, recognition, association

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<!-- metadata commented in wiki content
+'''Can Plants Learn? – Auditory Conditioned Learning on ''Cucumis sativus'' Plants'''
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
+<nowiki>                                                                                                              </nowiki><sup>1</sup>shiqihuang217@gmail.com, <sup>2</sup>melika.k.marcellino@gmail.com, <sup>3</sup>tiag2292@gmail.com,
-'''Can Plants Learn? – Auditory Conditioned Learning on Cucumis sativus Plants'''</div>
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
+<sup>4</sup>lwang10@schools.nyc.gov, <sup>5</sup>jcohen53@schools.nyc.gov
-<sup>1†</sup>Shi Qi Huang, <sup>2†</sup>Marcellino Melika, <sup>3†</sup>Tian Gao, <sup>4</sup>Lingyan Wang, <sup>5</sup>Jessica Cohen</div>
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
+<nowiki>                                                                                                                        </nowiki><sup>†</sup>These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship
-<sup>1</sup>[mailto:shiqihuang217@gmail.com shiqihuang217@gmail.com], <sup>2</sup>[mailto:melika.k.marcellino@gmail.com melika.k.marcellino@gmail.com], <sup>3</sup>[mailto:tiag2292@gmail.com tiag2292@gmail.com],</div>
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
+Francis Lewis High School, Queens, New York, USA
-<sup>4</sup>[mailto:lwang10@schools.nyc.gov lwang10@schools.nyc.gov], <sup>5</sup>[mailto:jcohen53@schools.nyc.gov jcohen53@schools.nyc.gov]</div>
-−
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
-<sup>†</sup>These authors contributed equally to this work and share first authorship</div>
-−
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
-Francis Lewis High School, Queens, New York, USA</div>
--->
 '''Abstract''' – Previous studies show that plants can recognize and respond to different sounds, such as insect-chewing and running water. Prior research demonstrated that plants can learn and respond to stimuli like touch; it is unclear if plants can have a conditioned response to sound. Our former study found that plants can recognize the sound of stream water (SW) and continue growing throughout drought. Experimentation aimed to investigate if ''Cucumis sativus ''plants can grow throughout drought when conditioned to associate non-water sounds to the sound of water. The hypothesis was that cucumber plants would respond to sounds besides SW after auditory conditioning. Some groups were given a training phase (TP) to help them develop an association between their chosen sound and watering session, while others were not given a TP. After the TP was concluded, all groups went into drought stress, while still being exposed to sound. Control groups had no exposure to sound at all. Shoot lengths, leaf lengths, and chlorophyll contents were collected throughout and at the end of the experiment. Overall, groups with rock music (RM) and TP and the sound of water with or without TP had a visible increase in growth, while RM without TP had comparable results to control. Future research will determine if the ability of plants to respond to auditory conditioned learning is altered depending on the time of training relative to the stages of a plant’s life cycle, similarly to a person’s capability to learn and develop at different stages of life.

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 Groups with “2” had a training phase, while groups with “1” did not. 10 plants were used in each group for this trial. Error bars represent the standard deviation. C groups showed no significance in the average final number of leaves while group B2 showed significance between B1 and control group. All groups showed no significance between each other when comparing the average final day and wet mass. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference, represented with different lettering.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image40.jpg|600px]]
+<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
 <big>'''Figure 7: '''</big>'''The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 4.'''

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 ==Results==
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image2.png|600px]]
-''' '''
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-picture-Graphic 15.svg|center|600px]]
 '''Figure 2: The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 1. '''
@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 Figure 2. Average shoot length and leaf length over time-Trial 1. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth, even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image4.png|600px]]
-''' '''
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-picture-Graphic 16.svg|center|600px]]
 '''Figure 3: The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 2.'''
@@ Line 161: / Line 161: @@
 Figure 2. Average shoot length and leaf length over time-Trial 2. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth (except in the case of the 2 hr group), even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image6.png|600px]]
 '''Figure 4: The Average Amount of Leaves, Final Wet Mass, Final Dry Mass, and Average Water Retention at the End of Trial 2.  '''
@@ Line 167: / Line 168: @@
 Figure 4. Comparison of final plant conditions among groups-Trial 2. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth (except in the case of the 2 hr group), even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image8.png|600px]]
-''' '''
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-picture-Graphic 18.svg|center|600px]]
 '''Figure 5: The Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 3.'''
@@ Line 174: / Line 175: @@
 Figure 5: Groups with “2” had a training phase, while groups with “1” did not. 10 plants were used in each group for this trial. Error bars represent the standard deviation. The “2” groups show an increase in height when compared to their “1” counterparts and Group A (control). ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference, represented with different lettering.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image10.png|600px]]
-''' '''
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-picture-Graphic 20.svg|center|600px]]
 '''Figure 6: The Average Amount of Leaves, Final Wet Mass, and Final Dry Mass at the End of Trial 3.'''
@@ Line 181: / Line 182: @@
 Groups with “2” had a training phase, while groups with “1” did not. 10 plants were used in each group for this trial. Error bars represent the standard deviation. C groups showed no significance in the average final number of leaves while group B2 showed significance between B1 and control group. All groups showed no significance between each other when comparing the average final day and wet mass. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference, represented with different lettering.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image12.jpg|600px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image40.jpg|600px]]
 <big>'''Figure 7: '''</big>'''The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 4.'''

@@ Line 147: / Line 147: @@
 ==Results==
-<nowiki>   </nowiki>[[Image:Review_855074334749-image2.png|300px]] [[Image:Review_855074334749-image3.png|center|294px]][[Image:Review_855074334749-image4.png|300px]] [[Image:Review_855074334749-image5.png|center|294px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image2.png|600px]]
 '''Figure 2: The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 1. '''
@@ Line 153: / Line 154: @@
 Figure 2. Average shoot length and leaf length over time-Trial 1. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth, even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
-<nowiki>   </nowiki>[[Image:Review_855074334749-image6.png|270px]] [[Image:Review_855074334749-image7.png|center|276px]][[Image:Review_855074334749-image8.png|270px]] [[Image:Review_855074334749-image9.png|center|276px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image4.png|600px]]
 '''Figure 3: The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 2.'''
@@ Line 159: / Line 161: @@
 Figure 2. Average shoot length and leaf length over time-Trial 2. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth (except in the case of the 2 hr group), even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image6.png|600px]]
-{|
-|-
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image10.png|276px]]
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image11.png|center|276px]]
-|}
-−
-−
-−
-{|
-|-
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image12.png|276px]]
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image13.png|center|276px]]
-|}
-−
 '''Figure 4: The Average Amount of Leaves, Final Wet Mass, Final Dry Mass, and Average Water Retention at the End of Trial 2.  '''
@@ Line 179: / Line 167: @@
 Figure 4. Comparison of final plant conditions among groups-Trial 2. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth (except in the case of the 2 hr group), even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
-<nowiki>   </nowiki>[[Image:Review_855074334749-image14.png|294px]] [[Image:Review_855074334749-image15.png|center|300px]] [[Image:Review_855074334749-image16.png|294px]] [[Image:Review_855074334749-image17.png|center|294px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image8.png|600px]]
 '''Figure 5: The Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 3.'''
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
+Figure 5: Groups with “2” had a training phase, while groups with “1” did not. 10 plants were used in each group for this trial. Error bars represent the standard deviation. The “2” groups show an increase in height when compared to their “1” counterparts and Group A (control). ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference, represented with different lettering.
- [[Image:Review_855074334749-image18-c.png|300px]] </div>
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image10.png|600px]]
-{|
+''' '''
-|-
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image19-c.png|300px]]
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image20-c.jpg|center|300px]]
-|}
-−
-−
-Figure 5: Groups with “2” had a training phase, while groups with “1” did not. 10 plants were used in each group for this trial. Error bars represent the standard deviation. The “2” groups show an increase in height when compared to their “1” counterparts and Group A (control). ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference, represented with different lettering.
 '''Figure 6: The Average Amount of Leaves, Final Wet Mass, and Final Dry Mass at the End of Trial 3.'''
@@ Line 200: / Line 181: @@
 Groups with “2” had a training phase, while groups with “1” did not. 10 plants were used in each group for this trial. Error bars represent the standard deviation. C groups showed no significance in the average final number of leaves while group B2 showed significance between B1 and control group. All groups showed no significance between each other when comparing the average final day and wet mass. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference, represented with different lettering.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image21.jpg|600px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image12.jpg|600px]]
 <big>'''Figure 7: '''</big>'''The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 4.'''

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:22, 17 May 2024
(No difference)

@@ Line 133: / Line 133: @@
 Each group was watered with 15 mL of water 2 days a week. Outside of the training phase, same-lettered groups were now treated the same: the sound of stream water was played for groups B1 and B2 for 3 hours while the sound of rock music was played for groups C1 and C2 for 3 hours, and all groups were watered within this time. Group A (the control group) had no exposure to the sound of stream water or rock music during any portion of the experiment. The speaker was approximately 16 cm away from all groups, and when a group reached their required time of treatment, they were moved into the lab room with the control group to ensure that no sound could be intercepted until it was time for their sound treatment again. The plants were rotated every day to ensure all plants received the same amount of sunlight, which will follow in Figure 1. There were 10 plants at each table (with one group at each table).
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image13-c.png|600px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image1.png|600px]]
 '''Figure 1: Plant rotation for each group, all groups followed this same pattern; by S. Huang.'''
@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 Several variables were measured throughout all trials. Firstly, the shoot length was recorded. This was done by measuring the length of all 50 plants (10 in each group). The length was considered as the distance from the bottom of the shoot outside of the soil to the highest point of the shoot. Additionally, the leaf length was collected. All 50 plants’ leaves were measured. Leaf length was considered as the distance from the tip of the leaf to the base of the leaf connected to the stem. Only leaves that were above 2 cm were considered to not drag down data due to measuring newly formed leaves. Furthermore, photos were taken weekly of each group for qualitative observations. Continuing, the number of leaves was observed. This was done by counting the number of leaves of all plants, including newly formed leaves. Furthermore, the average root length was measured at the end of the experiment. This was done by removing the plants from the pots and removing any attached soil from the roots, then adjusting the roots to be straight and using a ruler to precisely measure the length in centimeters. The data was then averaged by each group to obtain a mean value for each group. Lastly, dry/wet mass as well as water retention and chlorophyll content were measured. At the end of the experiment, the plants were removed from the soil using hands and then washed and weighed on a precise scale, which was recorded for wet mass. Then the plants were heated at 42<sup>o</sup> C overnight until all water was removed and re-measured. This new value is subtracted from the original value to calculate the final dry mass. The values for wet and dry mass were subtracted from each other to determine the plant water retention for each group. Using the spectrometer, chlorophyll and chlorophyll B amounts were measured. All data was collected 4 days a week (except for root length, wet/dry mass, and plant water retention), excluding a few days where data could not be collected (like for example weekends or holidays).
-''Data Analysis Plan<br/>'' '''         '''Data was stored in an Excel spreadsheet. The data collected displayed comparisons. The average shoot length was calculated by finding the average length per plant in each group for each day measured. The average leaf width was performed in a similar manner, but instead calculating the average per leaf rather than per plant. The average number of leaves, dry mass, wet mass, and water retention was determined through the average per plant in each group. Firstly, bar diagrams were used, which compared the average amount of leaves by the end of the experiment between groups, which was calculated at the end of the experiment, as well as the average shoot and leaf length at key moments during the experiment to better illustrate comparisons of significance over time. In addition, line graphs were used to compare average shoot length growth and average leaf length growth between groups over time. Finally, bar graphs were used to compare the average final dry, wet mass, chlorophyll content as well as average water retention of the plants among groups. Finally, the significant analysis was calculated using ANOVA alongside Tukey HSD, which was denoted within figures with the use of asterisks to signify different levels of significance. Standard deviations, means, and ratios were calculated using standard functions within excel, while ANOVA with Tukey HSD was calculated using a separate website ([https://astatsa.com/OneWay_Anova_with_TukeyHSD/ https://astatsa.com/OneWay_Anova_with_TukeyHSD/]).
+''Data Analysis Plan''
 ==Results==
-==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image6-c.png|300px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image7-c.png|center|294px]] |} ==
+==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image2.png|300px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image3.png|center|294px]] |} ==
-==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image2-c.png|300px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image17-c.png|center|294px]] |} ==
+==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image4.png|300px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image5.png|center|294px]] |} ==
 '''Figure 2: The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 1. '''
@@ Line 153: / Line 155: @@
 Figure 2. Average shoot length and leaf length over time-Trial 1. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth, even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
-==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image3-c.png|270px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image5-c.png|center|276px]] |} ==
+==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image6.png|270px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image7.png|center|276px]] |} ==
-==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image20-c.png|270px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image15-c.png|center|270px]] |} ==
+==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image8.png|270px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image9.png|center|276px]] |} ==
 '''Figure 3: The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 2.'''
@@ Line 164: / Line 166: @@
 {|
 |-
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image8-c.png|276px]]
+| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image10.png|276px]]
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image14-c.png|center|282px]]
+| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image11.png|center|276px]]
 |}
@@ Line 172: / Line 174: @@
 {|
 |-
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image11-c.png|276px]]
+| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image12.png|276px]]
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image10-c.png|center|276px]]
+| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image13.png|center|276px]]
 |}
@@ Line 181: / Line 183: @@
 Figure 4. Comparison of final plant conditions among groups-Trial 2. Each line or bar represents a different amount of treatment of the sound of stream water. There were 10 plants per group. Error bars represent the standard deviation. Generally, increased treatment lead to increased growth (except in the case of the 2 hr group), even through the later phases of drought stress where withering occurs. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference *p<0.05, **p<0.01 compared with the control group.
-==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image1-c.png|294px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image4-c.png|center|300px]] |} ==
+==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image14.png|294px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image15.png|center|300px]] |} ==
-==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image9-c.png|294px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image18-c.png|center|294px]] |} ==
+==  {| |- | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image16.png|294px]] | [[Image:Review_855074334749-image17.png|center|294px]] |} ==
 '''Figure 5: The Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 3.'''
@@ Line 193: / Line 193: @@
 {|
 |-
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image16-c.jpg|center|300px]]
+| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image18-c.png|center|306px]]
-| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image12-c.png|center|306px]]
+| [[Image:Review_855074334749-image19-c.jpg|center|300px]]
 |}
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image21-c.png|center|306px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image20-c.png|center|312px]]
 '''Figure 6: The Average Amount of Leaves, Final Wet Mass, and Final Dry Mass at the End of Trial 3.'''
@@ Line 203: / Line 205: @@
 Groups with “2” had a training phase, while groups with “1” did not. 10 plants were used in each group for this trial. Error bars represent the standard deviation. C groups showed no significance in the average final number of leaves while group B2 showed significance between B1 and control group. All groups showed no significance between each other when comparing the average final day and wet mass. ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD was conducted to determine the significant difference, represented with different lettering.
-[[Image:Review_855074334749-image19-c.jpg|600px]]
+[[Image:Review_855074334749-image21.jpg|600px]]
 <big>'''Figure 7: '''</big>'''The Average Shoot Length and Leaf Length Over Time for Trial 4.'''