## 3 Results
### Fruit Yield and Olive Oil Production Parameters  
Water and dry matter contents in fresh OP remained unchanged under Si treatments, and there were no differences between cultivars in these two parameters (Table 2).  
Oil content in dry OP, as well as olive oil extraction yield, were significantly different in two cultivars, while Si treatments did not have any effect. IB cultivar showed a higher content of oil in dry OP, as well as a higher olive oil extraction yield. Content of oil in fresh OP was significantly affected by both main factors and, similarly to previous parameters, IB cultivar showed higher values compared to L cultivar. Treatment-wise, the only significant differences were recorded between control and Si2 treatment (16.80 in control compared to 14.90 in Si2). Yield per tree was significantly affected by the main factors and their interaction (Table 2). From Figure 2A, it is clear that yields per tree of the two cultivars were differently affected by Si treatments; under control, there was no significant difference between cultivars. IB cultivar was unaffected by Si application, but a significant increase compared to control was recorded for L cultivar under Si2 treatment. Results for yield per tree showed similar results, as IB cultivar was unaffected by Si treatment, while L cultivar showed significantly higher olive oil yield per tree with Si2 treatment (Figure 2B).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Treatment (T)** & **Water Content in** & **Dry Mater in** & **Oil Content in** & **Oil Content in** & **Yield/Tree (kg)** & **Olive Oil** & **Extraction Yield (\%)** \\  & **Fresh “OP (\%)** & **Fresh OP (\%)** & **Dry OP (\%)** & **Fresh OP (\%)** & **Yield/Tree (L)** & **Yield (\%)** \\ \hline C & 56.80 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 43.20 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 39.10 \(\pm\) 3.11 & 16.80 \(\pm\) 1.17 a & 8.89 \(\pm\) 1.34 b & 0.80 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 9.45 \(\pm\) 0.95 \\ Si1 & 58.30 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 41.70 \(\pm\) 0.43 & 39.00 \(\pm\) 3.48 & 16.20 \(\pm\) 1.43 ab & 9.78 \(\pm\) 1.00 ab & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 9.24 \(\pm\) 0.94 \\ Si2 & 58.80 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 41.20 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 36.20 \(\pm\) 3.48 & 14.90 \(\pm\) 1.47 b & 14.30 \(\pm\) 3.17 a & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.12 & 8.84 \(\pm\) 0.99 \\ Si3 & 58.00 \(\pm\) 0.80 & 42.00 \(\pm\) 0.80 & 38.30 \(\pm\) 3.18 & 16.00 \(\pm\) 1.21 ab & 12.60 \(\pm\) 1.83 ab & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 8.89 \(\pm\) 1.04 \\ \(p\) & ns & ns & ns & 0.015 & \textless{}0.001 & ns & ns \\ \hline Cultivar (Cv.) & & & & & & & \\ \hline IB & 58.50 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 41.50 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 46.60 \(\pm\) 0.61 a & 19.30 \(\pm\) 0.28 a & 7.89 \(\pm\) 0.52 b & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 11.59 \(\pm\) 0.18 \\ L & 57.50 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 42.50 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 29.60 \(\pm\) 0.7 b & 12.60 \(\pm\) 0.33 b & 14.92 \(\pm\) 119 a & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 663 \(\pm\) 0.23 b \\ \(p\) & ns & ns & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.001 & 0.001 & ns & \textless{}0.001 \\ \hline TxCv. & & & & & & & \\ \hline \(p\) & ns & ns & ns & \textless{}0.001 & 0.044 & ns \\ \hline \end{tabular} Results are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard errors. Different lowercase letters in a column represent statistically significant differences between mean values for each main effect at \(p\leq 0.05\) obtained by two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test. Significance is shown as exact numbers. ns—not significant. \(\geq\)0.05. Cultivars: IB—Istarska Bjelica, L—Leccino, Treatments: C—untreated control, and Si1—(0.55 g Si/L), Si2—(1.1 g Si/L), Si3—(2.2 g Si/L) applied as potassium silicate solution. “OP—olive paste.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Fruit yield and olive oil production parameters of two cultivars under different levels of foliar applied Si.