Pollen Data Table

Team Agreement

Amelia - I focused on gathering together background information and explaining the analysis of the data that we got from all microscopes.

Sam - I worked on creating the phylogenetic tree and comparing the sequences from the three plans that we chose

Jasmine - I looked into characteristics that all of the pictures of pollen had in order to compare them side by side and help in determining relations between them and also made the pollen data table

Da'Marea - I wrote out out whole procedure step by step making sure each step was very clear and also helped Sam in analyzing the information he found from making the phylogenetic tree.


As a group we formed a question, procured a hypothesis, and took pictures on all of the microscopes.

Analysis

Our hypothesis came up to be wrong. The Rose gigantea and the Larix Decidua Compacta(Larch) have the same number of apertures and come from the same type of pollen, although our hypothesis said they would not be alike. We thought that if the surface textures was the same then they would be more common but we were incorrect. The Rose gigantea is the plant that we trust because it contains contractile proteins, the same thing as strong skeletal and cardiac muscle.

Analysis of Data

Our hypothesis was not correct. We had hypothesized that the two wind-pollinated plants would be the most closely related plants but after taking pictures on many microscopes and studying the ancestors of all three plants, it turned out the angiosperm insect pollinated rose and the gymnosperm wind pollinated larch were the most closely related, opposed to the larch and the millet, which were both wind-pollinated like we had predicted. The larch and the rose had a common ancestor that the millet was not connected to, making it seem that at least in terms of these three plants, the way in which they are pollinated does not affect how closely related they are.

Phylogenetic Tree - Protein Sequences

In this diagram, the evolutionary branches for three specific plants can be seen: Larch, Millet, and A Rose





This tree disagrees with the original tree generated by the hypothesis. It does not support the idea that two wind-pollinated plants, although one is a gymnosperm and the other is an angiosperm, will be more closely related than the wind-pollinated angiosperm and an insect-pollinated angiosperm. Instead it shows that the wind-pollinated gymnosperm was more closely related to the insect-pollinated angiosperm. The validity of this statement appears strong because protein mapping has proved to be a useful way to determine evolutionary trails. However the proposed difference in trees seems like to be counter-active to what the common sense would say. Regardless, this tree is the most likely to be correct, and matches with our morphology tree.

Phylogenetic Tree- Pollen Morphology

We generated this tree after reviewing the images retrieved from the SEM. The Larch and Rose both appear to be moncolpate and have one aperture each. In contrast, the Millet may be tricolpate and also has no aperture. This leads us to believe that the Larch and Rose are more closely related. The Larch and Millet do share similar surface texture in that they are both psilate. However the overall morphology seems to indicate that Larch and Rose would share a common ancestor before either share one with Millet.

Procedure

First, we picked 3 different plants:

Then we checked out a computer and got a microscope. We used the tools in the clear box to put pollen on the clear slides that you can see on the yellow tray. Those slides were then looked at in the microscopes(top left corner) on 400x.    The third step is that we used the tools in the clear box to get pollen from each plant and put a good amount of it on our stub. 

Our fourth step was to look at the pollenated slides through the microscope through a camera that is connected to and shows up on our computer.

This is our stub:

Fifthly, you then have to spray the stub with a can of air(as you can see below) to make sure the pollen is secure and on the stub.

Sixthly, after our stub is completely finished we then looked at the pollen on the SEM's.

The seventh step was to take the images we saved on our USB from the SEM and upload them to the computer.

Our eighth and final step was to then look at the pollen in the Leica Stereomicroscope.