## 3 Results
### Relationship between Fruit Quality Parameters
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & **CI** & **FD** & **CAT** & **SOD** & **POD** & **PAL** & **AAC** & **TCC** & **TSPC** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**FD a**} & **0.698 b,c** & & & & & & & & \\  & **0.047** & & & & & & & & & \\
**CAT** & **0.960** & 0.576 & & & & & & & \\  & **-0.001** & 0.085 & & & & & & & \\
**SOD** & 0.167 & \(-0.549\) & 0.257 & & & & & & \\  & \(>\)0.1 & \(-0.1\) & \(>\)0.1 & & & & & & \\  & \(>\)0.1 & \(-0.1\) & \(>\)0.1 & & & & & & \\
**POD** & \(-0.171\) & 0.260 & \(-0.123\) & \(\mathbf{-0.721}\) & & & & & \\  & \(>\)0.1 & \(>\)0.1 & \(>\)0.1 & & **0.039** & & & & \\
**PAL** & 0.630 & \(-0.100\) & **0.696** & **0.711** & \(-0.381\) & & & & \\  & 0.071 & \(>\)0.1 & **0.048** & **0.042** & \(>\)0.1 & & & & \\
**AAC** & \(\mathbf{-0.908}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.527}\) & \(\mathbf{-0.884}\) & \(-0.218\) & 0.191 & \(-0.646\) & & & \\  & **<0.001** & 0.120 & **0.003** & \(>\)0.1 & \(>\)0.1 & 0.066 & & & \\ TCC & 0.305 & 0.036 & 0.307 & 0.253 & \(-0.219\) & 0. Thus, the relationships of the six pair-variables were further revealed by regression analysis (Figure 3). The linear regression analysis showed significant relationships for all six of the pair-variables with \(r\) = 0.716-0.932, \(p\) = 0.03-0.001 and with \(r\) = 0.703-0.889, \(p\) = 0.03-0.001 for the MeJA and SA treatments, respectively, but the slopes for all six of the pair-variables were not different between the MeJA and the SA treatments (\(p\) = 0.654-0.116 according to a \(t\)-test). Figure 3: Relationships between fruit decay and chilling injury index, PAL (phenylalanine ammonia-lyase) and CAT (catalase activity), PAL and SOD (superoxide dismutase), total antioxidant content and SOD, total antioxidant content and fruit decay, and ascorbic acid content and chilling injury index in treatments of methyl jasmonate (MeJA, 0.2 mmol L\({}^{-1}\)) and salicylic acid (SA, 2 mmol L\({}^{-1}\)). PCA explained the 89.3% of the total variance and the PCs had been justified. The RMSR was 0.05 indicating good fit. PC1 accounted for 55.6% of the variance and correlated with the CI, FD, TAC, TSPC, TCC (Carotenoids), PAL, and SOD. PC2 accounted for 19.7% of the variance and correlated with the POD and AAC. PC3 accounted for 14.0% of the variance and correlated with the CAT. The 95 ellipses of treatments indicated that the control group overlapped with the treatments (Figure 4); however, the difference was significant in the case of PC1 (F = 13, df = 2, \(p>0.001\)) and non-significant for PC2 (F = 1.518, df = 2, \(p=0.251\)). Accordingly, variables of PC1 were more efficient in discriminating the treatments than PC2, where the control and treated samples had similar values. Figure 4: Biplot of principal component analyses (PCA) conducted on the measured fruit quality parameters: CI = chilling injury index, FD = fruit decay index, CAT = catalyse activity, SOD = superoxide dismutase activity, POD = peroxidase activity, PAL = phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity, AAC = ascorbic acid content, Carotenoids = total carotenoid content, TSPC = total soluble phenol content and TAC = total antioxidant capacity. (C: control; MJ0.2: MeJA, 0.2 mmol L\({}^{-1}\); SA2: SA, 2 mmol L\({}^{-1}\)); 95% ellipses).