Please please I beg you just reword this!! It should not be the same

An experiment was conducted which included 6 samples from a Brandywine in a shaded
environment and 6 samples from a Brandywine in a direct sunlight environment. The results showed the photosynthesis and respiration rates of Brandywine Viburnums. The results showed that there was not much photosynthesis happening in the sunlight exposed environment. There are a few factors that caused this to happen, one being the weather had dropped significantly
on the different days we experimented so the chloroplasts in the leaf had already died due to
the weather change. For the shaded environment, there was more respiration than photosynthesis happening in the leaves. So therefore, the respiration rates would be at a higher rate as shown in our graphs. We did have the same weather complications for these samples as well including the temperature dropping which shows the jump in numbers and you can see that difference between plant A’s (shaded) and plant B’s (sunlight) rates but due to those complications affecting it, the results and data cannot say either or. All the t-value were 2.57 for NPP, 2.36 for GPP, 2.3 for R. They were all larger than 0.05, thus reject the null hypothesis.
Also, all the P value is smaller than 0.05, which indicate that the null hypothesis should be
rejected. In other words, we are not able to say there was a difference or that there was not
difference of GPP between those In other words, we are not able to say there was a or that
there was not difference in GPP between those two plants in different environments and have
solid data to back those statements up due to errors.