Effects of Miracle-Gro Solution on Wisconsin-fast Plant Growth Peter Francissen, Joseph Gonsiorek, Danielle Deering, Elise Morgan Introduction The focus of the experiment was to determine the effects of fertilizer on Wisconsin- fast plants. There have been many studies done on the effects of various fertilizers and composts on different plants. A study by Atiyeh et. al (2000) has shown that vermicomposts, which are composts produced by the fragmentation of organic wastes by earthworms, have had a positive impact on the growth and development of raspberry plants. By adding 10% or 20% vermicomposted pig wastes to Metro-Mix 360 soil, the dry weight of the plants was found to be significantly higher than if grown in just the Metro-Mix 360 soil (Atiyeh et. al 2000). Another study done by Annis et. al (2014) investigated the effects of solid and liquid fertilizer on the growth of Penstemon tubaeflorus. The study found that the usage of a solid fertilizer had the greatest impact on plant development. Some fertilizers have been shown to have a negative effect on plant growth. Atiyeh et. al (2000) found that yard, leaf, and bark composts had a negative impact on the growth of raspberry plants and that chicken manure can have a lethal effect. One study by Wilber and Williamson (2008) also showed that, in certain plants, excessive amounts of fertilizer causes negative effects on plant growth. High amounts of fertilizer led to the plants contracting a stress- induced disease and plant growth was the lowest out of all the fertilizer rates. For this study, we hypothesized that using the recommended concentration of Miracle-Gro solution on Wisconsin-fast plants would have a positive impact on the plant’s growth. However, exceeding the recommended concentration of Miracle-Gro solution will be detrimental to the plant’s growth. The purpose of this experiment was to see how different amounts of Miracle-Gro solution would affect the growth of Wisconsin-fast plants. Methods We filled three planting chambers with equal amounts of the same potting soil. We then planted Wisconsin-fast plant seeds in each of the cells, totaling fifteen plants in each planter. While only twelve plants were needed, extra were planted to account for those that would not germinate. We labeled each of the planters separately as control, experiment one (E1), and experiment two (E2), and placed them in a large tray. We filled the large tray till it had 2 cm of water at the bottom. We then allowed the plants to germinate under 24 hour fluorescent lighting and at room temperature of 27 Celsius. Thereafter, the water was maintained at 1 cm. We watered the control group with tap water, fertilized E1 with the recommended amount of Miracle-Gro solution, and E2 with 1.5 times the recommended amount of Miracle-Gro solution. Each week on the same day we measured the plant height from the soil to the top in. After five weeks of growth, we cut each of the plants at ground level and weighed them. A student t-test was performed to determine if there were significant differences between the control height and weight and the experimental groups’ height and weight. Results Average masses of E1 and E2 plants were very much lower than that of the control (Fig. 1). The average mass for the control was 0.96g, for E1 it was.043g, and for E2 it was.034g. The p-values were significant between the control group and E1 group (p= ) and the control group and E2 group (p= ), but were not significant between the E1 and E2 groups (p= ). The average heights of each group for the final measurement was 201 mm for the control group, for E1 and for E2. P-values were again found to be significant between the control and E1 group (p= ) and the control and E2 group (p= ), but were not significant between E1 and E2 groups (p= ). Discussion The average height and weight of our control group plants was significantly different from both the E1 and E2 groups. This means that the usage of Miracle-Gro solution had a significant inhibition on the growth of Wisconsin-fast plants. The average height and weight of the E1 and E2 groups were significantly lower than that of the control group indicates that the usage of Miracle-Gro solution, in both recommended and 1.5x the recommended dosages, has a negative impact on the growth of Wisconsin-fast plants. It was also found that the E1 and E2 groups were not significantly different from one another, in terms of both height and weight which tells us that there was little difference between using either the recommended dosage or 1.5x the recommended dosage. Our hypothesis that the recommended dosage of Miracle-Gro would help plant growth, while using 1.5x the recommended dosage would be harmful to plant growth was partially supported. Our results show instead that both the recommended amount of Miracle-Gro solution and 1.5x the recommended amount were harmful to the plants. The results were unexpected, as we had believed that there would be a significant difference between using the recommended dosage and the 1.5x recommended dosage. However, it turned out that there was no significant difference between the two dosages, with both having significant inhibition on plant growth. There are two possible explanations as to why using Miracle-Gro on the plants was harmful to Wisconsin-fast plants. Wilber and Williamson (2008) claimed in their paper that using too much fertilizer was harmful to plant growth, as it caused the plants to become stressed. It may be that the recommended dosage of Miracle- Gro was too much for the Wisconsin-fast plants, or that the potting soil we used was already nutrient rich. Atiyeh et. al (2000) found that different fertilizers impact plants differently, with some aiding the plants’ growth and others hindering it. Miracle-Gro may be a fertilizer that hinders the growth of Wisconsin-fast plants, while a different type of fertilizer may have a positive impact on them. There are new questions we should test. We know that the recommended dosage of Miracle-Gro is harmful to Wisconsin-fast plants is harmful in rich soil, so what is the correct dosage? if there is one? If Miracle-Gro happens to not work well with Wisconsin-fast plants, then what fertilizer does? Vermicomposts and yard, leaf, and bark composts may be a good starting point, as there are previous results on the impact of these fertilizers from the experiment of Atiyeh et. al (2000). Literature Cited Annis J, O’Brien J, Coons J, Coutant N, Curry J September. Investigation of Seed Treatments and Fertilizer on Growth of Penstemon tubaeflorus. Southern Appalachian Botany Society [online]; [cited 2016 March 20]; 79 (3): Available from: BioOne (bioone.org) Atiyeh RM, Subler S, Edwards CA, Bachman G, Metzger JD, Shuster W February 18. Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedo biologia [online]; [cited 2016 March 13]; 44 (5): Available from: ScienceDirect (sciencedirect.com) Wilber WL, Williamson JG February. Effects of fertilizer rate on growth and fruiting of containerized southern highbush blueberry. HortScience [online]; [cited 2016 March 20]; 43 (1), 143–145. Available from: HortScience (hortsci.ashspublications.org) Figure 1. The average mass of the Wisconsin-fast plants after five weeks in control, E1, and E2 conditions. Figure 2. The average height of Wisconsin-fast plants (Brassica rapa) in three different experimental groups, measured weekly after planting. Abstract Wisconsin fast plant (Brassica Rapa, Brassicaceae) seeds were planted in three 6- celled planting chambers. The chambers were filled with standard potting soil under continuous grow-lux lighting. A week after germination, one planting chamber (E1) was supplied the recommended Miracle-Gro fertilizer solution. Our second experimental chamber (E2) was supplied with 1.5x the recommended amount of Miracle-Gro solution, and the control chamber was supplied with tap water. Thereafter, the plant heights were measured on 7-day intervals. After four weeks of data-recording the average plant height (mm) for the control group was 189.7, for E1 it was 73.5 and for E2 the average plant height was Our t-tests showed that the height of the control plants vs. E1 was significant (P= ), for control plants vs. E2 it was even more significant (P= ), however for E1 vs. E2 our data was insignificant (P= ). Our hypothesis was that supplying the Wisconsin fast plants with the recommended about of Miracle-Gro fertilizer solution would cause the plants to grow higher, but supplying the plants with above the recommended amount of fertilizer solution would hinder plant growth. The hypothesis was not supported because the plants in the control chamber grew significantly higher than any of the plants in the Miracle-Gro solution. We believed this result was attributed to the Miracle-Gro solution causing an excess of nutrients in the potting soil which inhibited plant growth.