During the first week, I noticed that the sunflowers were highly resilient to weather, light, and nutrient levels. They withstood wind and lack of sunlight, along with transport shock. However, their reliability to absorb nutrients faltered in low temperatures, and little leaf growth was
achieved. The stems seemed the grow the most, most likely to the genetic code within the giant sunflowers. The seed leaves withered and died during this period, but my observations was that both specimens had asserted themselves into a hydroponic environment, and that their root transport remained functional.

    During analysis of the first week, I noticed that there was a period where the CF reading did not change. I inferred that levels of nutrients dropped, but were too minute to be read by the meter (<500ppm).

    The second week was much more surprising. At first, Sunflower B seemed undeterred by the perchlorate. In fact, sunflower B accelerated growth while A remained stunted in height.  In appears unnecessary to care for the specimens except for water replenishment and a small amount of nutrients.

    Tissue comparison revealed only one major change. Although it continued growing, Sunflower B had a weakened stem and foliage had a yellow tint. Evidence suggested nutrient deficiencies in the organism, most likely due to the lack of nitrogen
in the perchlorate solution (Gibson, 2007). Foliage feeding lessened the stress of the deficiency. Nevertheless, Sunflower B continued on a major growth spurt; it gained five sets of new leaves, while A only grew three. Data also shows that the weakened foliage did not change the perchlorate absorption rate. When B was reinserted to a nutrient solution at the end of the experiment, it returned to normal strength and color after three days.