## 3 Results
### SA Application Limits Color Development  
In year 1, L\({}^{*}\) color parameter ranged between 65 (C0 of controls) and 51 (C2 of fruit treated by 1 mM SA) (Figure 2a). The parameter hue angle varied from 118 (C0 of controls) to 92 (C2 of SA-treated fruit), while C\({}^{*}\) from 50 (C1 of controls) to 30 (C2 of fruit treated by 1 mM SA) (Figure 2b,c). The effect of SA concentration was significant for hue angle only in the C1 category (\(p_{sat}<0.001\)), and not for L\({}^{*}\) and C\({}^{*}\) parameters in all categories (\(p_{sat}>0.05\);  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Probabilities**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Variables**} \\ \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Concentration**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Category**} & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**C\({}^{*}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**TSS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**pH**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**TA**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**TAN**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**C\({-}\)3\(-\)Rut**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**PAL**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**ANS**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**UFGTI**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**UFGTI**} \\ \hline \(p_{sat}\) & C0 & NS & NS & NS & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & NS \\ \(p_{sat}\) & C1 & NS & *** & NS & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & NS & ** & ** & ** \\ \(p_{sat}\) & C2 & NS & NS & NS & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** \\ \hline \(p_{sat}\) (all data differences) & - & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** & ** \\ \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{Categories: C0, sound fruit; C1, slightly cracked; C2, highly cracked. \({}^{*}\), \(p>0.05\); \({}^{**}\), \(p<0.01\); \({}^{**}\), \(p<0.001\); NS, non-significant.} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Probabilities of the effect of preharvest treatment with different concentrations of salicylic acid (SA) on \(L^{*}\), \(h^{\circ}\), C\({}^{*}\), TSS, pH, and TA in fig flesh and TAN, C-3-rut, _PAL_, _ANS_, _UFGTI_, and _UFGTI_ in fig peel in each cracking category (C0, C1, C2) and of all data differences on the same variables, in year 1.  
Figure 1: Frequency of cracking categories (%), in year 1 (**a**) and year 2 (**b**), in fig peel after preharvest treatment with different concentrations of salicylic acid (SA). The effect of concentration was highly significant in both experiments, according to the Wilcoxon/Kruskal–Wallis \(\chi^{2}\) test (\(p<0.001\)). Values among or between SA concentrations in (**a**) or (**b**), respectively, which share a common lowercase letter do not differ significantly. In each category, data analyzed by one-way ANOVA showed the concentration effect: year 1: C0, \(p<0.001\); C1, \(p<0.01\); C2, \(p<0.001\); and year 2: C0, \(p<0.001\); C3, \(p<0.001\).  
Overall data analysis showed significant effects for \(L^{*}\), hue angle, and \(C^{*}\) at \(p_{all}\) < 0.01 (Table 2). Indeed, a trend of reduction of the three color parameters was evident in all fruit within the C2 class (highly cracked). SA concentration at 1 mM in C2 exhibited the lowest values of L* (\(p\) < 0.05) and C* (\(p\) < 0.01) in comparison to C0 and C1 of fruit treated by 1 mM SA, as confirmed by partial analyses.  
In year 2, values of \(L^{*}\), \(h^{\circ}\), and \(C^{*}\) in C0 of controls were 55, 99, and 31, respectively, while in C0 of fruit treated by 2 mM SA were 56, 110, and 40, respectively. The SA concentration effect in year 2 was significant for \(h^{\circ}\) (\(p_{sa}\) < 0.05), \(C^{*}\) (\(p_{sa}\) < 0.05), but not for \(L^{*}\) (\(p_{sa}\) > 0.05) (Table 3).