## 2 Results and Discussion
### Consumer Evaluation of Celery Samples
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Cluster/Percentage**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Samples 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Overall** \\ **Liking per Cluster3** \\ \end{tabular} } \\ \cline{2-2} \cline{4-7}  & **12** & **25** & **22** & **25x12** & **22x12** & **12x22** & \\ \hline
1 (43.2\%) & 3.5\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{<}}}}\)AB & 4.6\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{Ab,ABCD}}}}\) & 4.5\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{b,ABC}}}}\) & 5.5\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a,CDEFGH}}}}\) & 5.2\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{ab,CDEF}}}}\) & 5.0\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{Ab,CDEF}}}}\) & *** & 4.7\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{c}}}}\) \\
2 (38.9\%) & 5.4\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{b,CDEFG}}}}\) & 6.8\({}^{\text{\tiny{a,H}}}\) & 6.8\({}^{\text{\tiny{A,H}}}\) & 6.7\({}^{\text{\tiny{a,GH}}}\) & 5.7\({}^{\text{\tiny{b,CDEFGH}}}\) & 6.1\({}^{\text{\tiny{ab,BFGH}}}\) & *** & 6.2\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a}}}}\) \\
3 (17.8\%) & 6.5\({}^{\text{\tiny{a,HGH}}}\) & 4.8\({}^{\text{\tiny{b,CDEF}}}\) & 5.2\({}^{\text{\tiny{ab,CDEF}}}\) & 3.3\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{<}}}}\)A & 5.1\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{ab,CDEF}}}}\) & 6.0\({}^{\text{\tiny{ab,DEGH}}}\) & *** & 5.1\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{b}}}}\) \\ Overall liking per sample 4 & 4.7\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{b}}}}\) & 5.5\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a}}}}\) & 5.5\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a}}}}\) & 5.6\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a}}}}\) & 5.4\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{ab}}}}\) & 5.6\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a}}}}\) & 5.6\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a}}}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Significant differences for the means per cluster (\(p<0.05\)) within a row are denoted by differing small letters \({}^{\text{\tiny{(Ab,c)}}}\); means are from 51 consumers for cluster 1, 46 consumers for cluster 2 and 21 consumers for cluster 3, respectively; significant differences from the interaction (sample x cluster) are denoted by differing capital letters \({}^{\text{\tiny{(A,B,C,D,E,G,I)}}}\). 2 ***, significant at 0.1% level. 3 Mean for overall liking per each cluster was significantly different with \(p<0.0001\). 4 The mean for overall liking per sample is from 118 consumers and it was significantly different with \(p=0.0004\). Significant interaction between sample x cluster was observed as calculated by two-way ANOVA (\(p<0.0001\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Overall liking of the celery samples for the cluster of consumers obtained from agglomerative hierarchical clustering. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Samples**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Liking \({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{A}}}}\)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Appearance** & **Aroma** & **Taste** & **Texture** & **Overall** \\ \hline
12 & 5.7\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{bc}}}}\) & 6.2\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{a}}}}\) & 5.0 & 4.7\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{c}}}}\) & 4.7\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{b}}}}\) & - \\
25 & 5.0\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{c}}}}\) & 5.5\({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{b}}}}\) & 5.3 & 6.0 \({}^{\text{\text{\tiny{ab}}}}\) & 5.5\({}^{\text{\  
liking data to form an internal preference map (Figure 3). Principal components one (PC1) and two (PC2) explained 47.63% of the variation in the data with hybrids and genotype 22 separated from genotypes 12 and 25 across PC1, driven by sweet taste (ST), moist mouthfeel (MM) and stalk thickness (STA) attributes. Genotypes 12 and 25 were separated across PC2 with genotype 12 being positively correlated with grass/green flavour (GGF), bitter taste (BT) and stringy mouthfeel (SM) attributes. Cluster 1 displayed no significant relationship with any sensory characteristics (Figure 3), therefore, confirming that celery not possessing a strong aroma such as hybrids 22x12 and 25x12 (Tables 1 and 2), were more liked. Genotypes 25 and 22 and hybrid 25x12 were scored highly for stalk thickness (STA), moist mouthfeel (MM) and had a firm first bite (FM) with a sweet taste (ST) as discussed during sensory profiling (Table 2) and these attributes were closely associated to the most liked genotypes within cluster 2.