This is a bit of an odd case as even without much light in "the sunny part" both cases presented grew at the same height. Even if one had a limited light source, which shows that our null hypothesis for that area can not be rejected. However, in comparison, the "Shady part of the yard" cases between a plant covered with shade versus one provided with extra light, the one with extra light grew more. Which can allow us to reject the null hypothesis if it follows the t-test guidelines.
So, our alternative hypothesis would have to change for both groups since one area was not affected by the light but the other was. So the only variable we can change is the area these plants reside and conclude if there is some sort of difference when presented with different amounts of light in their respective area in the yard. To find the limiting resource these plants need to increase in height.