evolka said:
Draw your own conclusions
And what conclusions are to be drawn? There are literally no parameters attached to this graphic.
.
In general, I assume that conclusions are there to be drawn, when sufficient evidence is present, to actually address some initial assumptions. This is particularly ironic, in that you have implied that this is a "black and white" result.
.
To the OP - there are reasons why one would choose a taller pot. To understand this, first consider that every media has a "saturation zone" - also referred to as a "perched water table". This is a physical property of all aggregate materials, under a particular particle size. Basically, it is the ability of a media to hold water - like a sponge - before the water weight overcomes the tension of the aggregate. You can demonstrate it with a sponge. Notice that you can fill a sponge with water to a certain point, and then it starts leaking out. However, a certain amount of water is held in the sponge, provided that it is not acted upon by an outside force. (wringing)
.
When applied to a media, the effect is very much the same. It's a sponge. This zone is the same for the aggregate, regardless of the size, shape, or volume. That is to say - it will occupy the same relative column height in the container, regardless of the characteristics of the container. \
.
So what does all that mean for you? Well, if you live in a climate that gets tons of rain, or you have a problem with overwatering, you'll be better off with a tall container, that holds water farther away from the root mass. If you are in a dry climate, you may want to consider shorter containers, to retain moisture near the root zone. There are numerous scenarios for choosing tall or short containers. This is just a very rudimentary example.