## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antioxidant Activities and Total Phenolic Content in Different Tissues of Aridchoke Genotypes
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**ABTS (\(\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\mathbf{\bmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbmbm             }}}}}}}}}\)}\)} & & \\
**Genotype** & **Leaf** & **Stem** & **PFH** & **SFH** \\ \hline Orte 1 F4 P10 & 220.35 \(\pm\) 1.87 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 380.60 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 316.54 \(\pm\) 4.69 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 372.16 \(\pm\) 6.94 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Orte 1 F3 P8 & 240.35 \(\pm\) 4.22 \({}^{\text{ef}}\) & 274.38 \(\pm\) 5.11 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 297.47 \(\pm\) 2.28 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 357.55 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ Orte 1 F17 P3 & 147.39 \(\pm\) 7.38 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 229.63 \(\pm\) 1.84 \({}^{\text{ef}}\) & 339.78 \(\pm\) 4.07 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 377.76 \(\pm\) 0.98 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline Orte 2 F7 P2 & 260.06 \(\pm\) 1.85 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 451.64 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 373.86 \(\pm\) 6.24 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 381.98 \(\pm\) 3.27 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) \\ Orte 2 F7 P5 & 214.8  
For the FRAP assay, in the Orte 1 population, Orte 1 F4 P10 exhibited the highest values in the SFH (407.52 umol TE/g DW), which was not significantly different from what was observed in Orte 1 F3 P8 in the stem (400.26 umol TE/g DW). In contrast, Orte 1 F17 P3 showed significantly lower FRAP values in both the stem (211.29 umol TE/g DW) and SFH (254.76 umol TE/g DW), as well as in all other tissues analyzed, compared to the other two genotypes (Table **??**). In the Orte 2 population, the highest antioxidant activities, as assessed using the FRAP method, were observed in the stems of the Orte 2 F15 P3 (552.57 umol TE/g DW) and Orte 2 F7 P2 (519.67 umol TE/g DW) genotypes. Notably, the latter genotype also demonstrated significantly elevated antioxidant activity in the SFH (434.14 umol TE/g DW) (Table **??**). In contrast, the Orte 2 F7 P5 genotype exhibited significantly lower values across all tissues analyzed when compared with the other two genotypes. Among the control genotypes, Grato 1 exhibited the highest antioxidant activity in the SFH (471.59 umol TE/g DW). Moreover, significantly elevated FRAP values (>400 umol/g \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**TPC (mg GAE/g DW)**} \\ \hline
**Genotype** & **Leaf** & **Stem** & **PFH** & **SFH** \\ \hline Orte 1 F4 P10 & 47.16 \(\pm\) 1.68 \({}^{t}\) & 92.84 \(\pm\) 1.76 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 46.79 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 154.27 \(\pm\) 1.59 \({}^{\rm a}\) \\ [PERSON] 1 F3 P8 & 24.72 \(\pm\) 1.82 \({}^{\rm g}\) & 58.44 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 53.99 \(\pm\) 0.88 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 53.54 \(\pm\) 1.12 \({}^{\rm e}\) \\ [PERSON] 1 F17 P3 & 47.47 \(\pm\) 0.76 \({}^{t}\) & 72.91 \(\pm\) 2.25 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 88.81 \(\pm\) 1.19 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 79.01 \(\pm\) 1.25 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ \[PERSON] 2 F7 P2 & 77.01 \(\pm\) 2.39 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 245.56 \(\pm\) 1.71 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 119.72 \(\pm\) 2.25 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 183.44 \(\pm\) 1.15 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ Orte 2 F7 P5 & 45.76 \(\pm\) 1.40 \({}^{\rm j}\) & 221.89 \(\pm\) 1.08 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 76.74 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 97.19 \(\pm\) 1.97 \({}^{\rm g}\) \\ Orte 2 F15 P3 & 65.29 \(\pm\) 1.72 \({}^{\rm i}\) & 242.17 \(\pm\) 1.50 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 105.97 \(\pm\) 3.92 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 173.56 \(\pm\) 3.38 \({}^{\rm d}\) \\ \hline Campaignano & 25.36 \(\pm\) 1.80 \({}^{\rm g}\) & 80.91 \(\pm\) 1.38 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 126.30 \(\pm\) 0.99 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 90.82 \(\pm\) 1.93 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ C3-13 & 30.82 \(\pm\) 1.79 \({}^{\rm g}\) & 34.47 \(\pm\) 1.61 \({}^{\rm f}\) & 120.36 \(\pm\) 3.41 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 69.05 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\rm d}\) \\ Grato 1 & 47.14 \(\pm\) 1.64 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 92.09 \(\pm\) 2.88 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 68.55 \(\pm\) 4.87 \({}^{\rm d}\) & 97.59 \(\pm\) 0.77 \({}^{\rm b}\) \\ Castellammare & 17.11 \(\pm\) 1.30 \({}^{\rm h}\) & 78.54 \(\pm\) 2.65 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 49.47 \(\pm\) 2.58 \({}^{\rm e}\) & 82.77 \(\pm\) 1.45 \({}^{\rm c}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}