## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Cultivar**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Acidity (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pervoxide Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**K\({}_{\mathbf{232}}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**K\({}_{\mathbf{270}}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**AK**} \\  & & **(meq O\({}_{2}\) kg\({}^{-1}\) Oil)** & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{2020} \\ \hline Abunara & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.02 a \({}^{\mathrm{z}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & 1.60 \(\pm\) 0.11 a & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.005 b & \(-\)0.002 \(\pm\) 0.0001 b \\ Calatina & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 3.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.004 a & \(-\)0.004 \(\pm\) 0.0003 a \\ Nocellara & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & 1.55 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.005b & \(-\)0.001 \(\pm\) 0.0001 c \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{2021} \\ \hline Abunara & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 5.1 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & 1.60 \(\pm\) 0.10 a & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.010 a & \(-\)0.001 \(\pm\) 0.0005 b \\ Calatina & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 1.60 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.009 a & \(-\)0.003 \(\pm\) 0.0003 a \\ Nocellara & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 b & 1.47 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.10 \(\pm\) 0.013 a & \(-\)0.003 \(\pm\) 0.0010 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\mathrm{z}}\) For each parameter and year, different letters denote statistically significant differences among cultivars according to [PERSON]’s multiple comparison test (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Standard quality parameters of virgin olive oils from ‘Abinara’, ‘Calatina’, and ‘Nocellara del Belice’ olive trees grown as central leaders at 2 \(\times\) 5 m (CLx2), free palmette at 3 \(\times\) 5 m (FPx3), globe vase at 4 \(\times\) 5 m (GVx4), and polyconic vase at 5 \(\times\) 5 m (PVx5) in the last two years of trials. Data are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 12). For each cultivar, data from different planting systems were pooled together. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline  & **Abunara** & **Calatina** & **Nocellara** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{_2020_} \\ \hline Myristic (C14:0) & n.d. & n.d. \\ Palmitic (C16:0) & 13.74 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \({}^{\mathrm{z}}\) & 9.57 \(\pm\) 0.09 c & 10.70 \(\pm\) 0.02 b \\ Palmitoleic (C16:1) & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.004 a & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.007 c & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.001 b \\ Margaric (C17:0) & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.0021 a & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.0009 b & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.0002 b \\ Margaric (C17:1) & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.023 a & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.003 b & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.0098 b \\ Stearic (C18:0) & 3.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 3.40 \(\pm\) 0.016 a & 3.35 \(\pm\) 0.03 a \\ Oleic (C18:1 \(\omega\)-9) & 69.24 \(\pm\) 0.128 c & 76.53 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 71.55 \(\pm\) 0.031 b \\ Linoleic (C18:2 \(\omega\)-6) & 10.63 \(\pm\) 0.038 b & 8.51 \(\pm\) 0.058 c & 12.24 \(\pm\) 0.002 a \\ Linolenic(C18:3 \(\omega\)-3) & 0.84 \(\pm\) 0.031 a & 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.025 b & 0.66 \(\pm\) 0.032 b \\ Archidito (C20:0) & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.002 a & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.004 a \\ Eicosonic (C20:1) & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.021 b & 0.40 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.033 ab \\ Behenic (C22:0) & n.d. & n.d. & n.d. \\ Lignoecric (C24:0) & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.001 a & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.002 a & 0.054 \(\pm\) 0.004 a \\ SFA & 17.61 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 13.53 \(\pm\) 0.09 c & 14.62 \(\pm\) 0.04 b \\ MUFA & 70.92 \(\pm\) 0.13 c & 77.28 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 72.48 \(\pm\) 0.05 b \\ PUFA & 11.47 \(\pm\) 0.05 b & 9.19 \(\pm\) 0.06 c & 12.90 \(\pm\) 0.03 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Fatty acid composition (%) of virgin olive oils from ‘Abunara’, ‘Calatina’, and ‘Nocellara del Belice’ olive trees grown as central leaders at 2 \(\times\) 5 m (CLx2), free palmette at 3 \(\times\) 5 m (FPx3), globe vase at 4 \(\times\) 5 m (GVx4), and polyconic vase at 5 \(\times\) 5 m (PVx5) in the last two years of trials. Data are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 12). For each cultivar, data from different planting systems were pooled together.