## 3 Results  
### Fruit Morphology  
All eight parameters measured showed sensitivity to Si foliar application; cultivar also significantly affected all parameters, as well as the interaction of foliar applied Si and cultivar (Table 1). Fruit mass was positively affected by Si treatment, with significant differences of Si2 and Si3 treatments from the control in IB cultivar, and all Si treatments in L cultivar (Figure 1E). IB cultivar tended to have slightly higher values than L cultivar (except for Si1 treatment). Fruit length was similarly affected by both main factors and their interaction (Table 1). Silicon application significantly affected this parameter, as values were significantly higher in Si2 and Si3 treatments compared to control in IB cultivar, and all Si treatments in L cultivar (Figure 1A). L cultivar had more elongated fruits compared to IB cultivar when Si was not applied, while under Si2 and Si3 treatments values were not significantly different between these two cultivars. Fruit width was the parameter that showed one of the most distinct differences between cultivars, as IB showed significantly higher values in all treatments except Si1 (Figure 1B). Silicon treatments did affect fruit width in both cultivars, with the highest values for Si2 and Si3 treatments. Fruit length and width ratio showed significant difference between the two cultivars, L cultivar showing higher values than IB in control and all three Si-treatments (Figure 1G). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment (T)** & **Faint Weight (g)** & **Faint** & **Faint** & **Stone** & **Stone** & **Faint** & **Stone** & **Faint** & **Stone** \\  & **Length (mm)** & **Width (mm)** & **Length (mm)** & **Width (mm)** & **Weight (g)** & **LengthWidth** & **LengthWidth** & **Pulp Weight (g)** & **Pulp Weight (g)** & **Pulp Ratio (g)** \\ \hline C & 31.2 \(\pm\) 0.03\(  
Figure 1: _Cont._  
For samples of IB cultivar, all treatments showed higher values with respect to control, while L cultivar showed a slight decrease in this parameter as Si concentration increased, with Si3 treatment showing significantly lower values compared to Si1. Stone length and the ratio of stone length to width responded similarly to Si treatments and the significance of cultivar was also present, as well as their interaction (Table 1). Values for both parameters were higher for L cultivar compared to IB, and values were significantly higher at Si2 and Si3 treatments for both parameters for IB cultivar. For L cultivar, all Si treatments were significantly higher from control for stone length parameter while, for the ratio of stone length and width, significant differences were not recorded (Figure 1C,H). L cultivar had higher stone width and stone mass values for all treatments compared to IB cultivar and both cultivars showed increase in these two traits with increased application of Si foliar concentration (Figure 1D,F). Stone width increased significantly at Si2 treatment in IB cultivar, while for L cultivar all three treatments showed higher values compared to control, with Si2 showing the highest. Stone mass showed similar response, as Si2 and Si3 treatments showed significantly higher values for IB cultivar, while all treatments showed higher values compared to control for L cultivar. Silicon treatments did not affect the proportion of pulp in any of the two cultivars, while the differences between the cultivars were quite large (Figure 1)), where IB cultivar showed much larger values. Pulp mass,  
Figure 1: Multiple comparisons of the effects of treatment (C, Si1, Si2, Si3) and cultivar (IB, L) on fruit length (**A**), width (**B**), stone length (**C**), width (**D**), fruit weight (**E**), stone weight (**F**), fruit length/width (**G**), stone length/width (**H**), pulp mass (**I**) and pulp percentage (**J**) of IB and L cultivars. Different lowercase letters represent statistically significant differences between mean values at \(p<0.05\) obtained by a two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test.