## 3 Results
### Total Soluble Solids (TSS), pH and Titratable Acidity (TA)  
In year 1, values of TSS varied from 14.9 to 16.7, TA from 1.02 to 1.39, and pH from 4.06 to 4.48 (Table 4). Particularly, TSS were higher in fruit treated with SA (2 mM) than controls in all categories (C0, C1, and C2), and similar to fruit treated with SA (1 mM) in C0 (Table 4).  
The SA concentration effect on TSS was significant for C0, C1, and C2 at \(p_{sat}<0.01\), \(p_{sat}<0.001\), and \(p_{sat}<0.001\), respectively (Table 2). For each SA concentration, TSS was increased by cracking (\(p_{sat}<0.001\)), as confirmed by three partial analyses. Similar to TSS, highly significant effects of SA concentration on TA were evident (\(p_{sat}<0.001\)) in all three categories (Table 2). Values of pH changed in a rather opposite direction as compared to TSS and TA. The effect of SA concentration was significant for pH in C0, C1, and C2 at \(p_{sat}<0.05\), \(p_{sat}<0.001\), and \(p_{sat}<0.01\), respectively. Partial analyses showed that for each SA concentration, the progressive cracking resulted in significant pH differences (\(p<0.01\), \(p<0.05\), and \(p<0.01\), for controls, 1 mM SA-treated and 2 mM SA-treated fruit, respectively) (Table 4).  
In year 2, fruit weight, \(L^{*}\), \(h^{\rho}\), \(C^{*}\), TSS, and TAN in controls of C0 were 62.7 g, 54.6, 99.4, 31.29, 17.4 \({}^{\circ}\)Brix, and 215 ug g\({}^{-1}\) dw, respectively, against 65.1 g, 55.5, 109.5, 39.5, 19 \({}^{\circ}\)Brix, and 45.3 ug g\({}^{-1}\) dw in 2 mM-treated fruit of C0, respectively (Table 4). The concentration effect was significant for all variables at \(p_{sat}<0.05\), apart from the fruit weight and \(L^{*}\) (\(p_{sat}>0.05\)) (Table 4).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & **Variables** & \\ \hline
**Category** & **Treatment** & **TSS (\({}^{\circ}\)Brix)** & **pH** & **TA** \\ \hline C0 & 0 mM & 14.93 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\rm{Eb}}\) & 4.48 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm{Aa}}\) & 1.02 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm{Fc}}\) \\  & 1 mM & 15.33 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\rm{CDa}}\) & 4.31 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm{Bb}}\) & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\rm{Deb}}\) \\  & 2 mM & 15.47 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm{Ca}}\) & 4.28 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm{Bc}}\) & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.47 \({}^{\rm{Bc}}\) \\ C1 & 0 mM & 15.12 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm{Dc}}\) & 4.42 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm{ABa}}\) & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\rm{Er}}\) \\  & 1 mM & 15.57 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\rm{Cb}}\) & 4.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm{Bc}}\) & 1.14 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\rm{Cb}}\) \\  & 2 mM & 15.97 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\rm{Ba}}\) & 4.32 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm{Ab}}\) & 1.20 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\rm{Bc}}\) \\ C2 & 0 mM & 16.00 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm{Bb}}\) & 4.36 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm{ABa}}\) & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\rm{Bc}}\) \\  & 1 mM & 16.23 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\rm{Bb}}\) & 4.13 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\rm{Cb}}\) & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\rm{Bb}}\) \\  & 2 mM & 16.73 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\rm{Aa}}\) & 4.06 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm{Db}}\) & 1.39 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\rm{Aa}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} All data presented are means (n = 3); bars are standard deviations. Columns not sharing a common letter are significantly different by Tukey test (\(\alpha\) = 0.05). Lowercase letters correspond to one-way ANOVA in each cracking category; capital letters correspond to one-way ANOVA of all data.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Changes in total soluble solids (TSS), pH, and titratable acidity (TA) in cracking categories of fig flesh after preharvest treatment with different concentrations of salicylic acid (SA), in year 1. Categories: C0, sound fruit; C1, slightly cracked; C2, highly cracked.