While designing this experiment, I focused on ensuring that the comparison between shaded and non-shaded areas was as fair and controlled as possible. The selection of two similar plots, both containing Miscanthus and having comparable soil types, was important to minimize differences not related to light exposure. This way, I did my best to ensure the outcome is caused by the independent variable only.
The random sampling method was chosen to avoid introducing bias into the data collection, which helped to maintain objectivity and ensured the data reflected the overall conditions in both (shaded & non-shaded) environments.
Another consideration was the timing. I conducted the study over two consecutive days allowed for consistent environmental conditions, like temperature, which could have otherwise influenced the results. However, if more time had been available, it might have been better if I collected data from days with various weather conditions.
Overall, I think my design is perfect.
careful of words like perfect in science, how could someone possibly assess such a thing? It doesn’t sound like you have a lot of replication if you have 2 plots. For ground cover species, usually you would use quadrats placed randomly and /or transects and you should aim for a minimum of 5 plots in each treatment level if your predictor variable is categorical. If only 2 treatments then I would do 10.