The first half of your post is trolling. However, let's look at this further.
There
was a noticeable difference between the two groups.
The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference
[/quote]
No sh_t.. And I never stated otherwise. Do pay attention that adverse effects of moonlight on plants have nothing to do with moonlight(the light itself) being harmful vs useless to the over all health of the plant he used. Many plants simply ignore moonlight and I don't think you comprehend this. Secondly moonlight is not strong enough to trigger photosynthetic processes but may trigger other morphogenetic or growth processes. He also doesn't go into how prolonged exposure to moonlight will mess with circadian rhythms just because it's lower intensity than direct sunlight. News flash EG, his experiment showed nothing of interest! And another news Flash EG, plants require more light than the moon can provided to sustain themselves! So no matter what, a plant will die if it doesn't get the light it requires. It may even expend energy vital to its survival to growth up to seek out a light source. Some plants can even physically uproot and move themselves in a 3D environment to put themselves out of the shade and into direct sunlight. Hence there are a lot of factors that low light such as moonlight can trigger in plants. The results differ because the light environment is different. In some cases moonlight is beneficial and triggers reproduction, blooming ect. There Nothing special in his little experiment.
Another thing of interest is that some plants will burn if you move them from a low light environment into a highly sun lit environment and die. Such as the Plumeria. This plant will also go dormant at night if the temperature goes below 50 degrees..
And sorry, it is correct that groups 1 and 2 are rather the only relevant groups to be looking at. And I see nothing of interest there.