## 3 Results and Discussion
### Influence of Genotype on Fruit Quality
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & **SSC** & **TA** & **pH** & **Firmness** & **h\({}^{\circ}\)** & **C\({}^{\star}\)** & **L\({}^{\star}\)** & **Weight** & **Size** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Open Field**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{’Rocio’} & 13.54 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.61 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.46 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 1.64 & 279.82 & 4.57 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 30.54 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 2.02 & 15.06 \\  & V2 & 12.54 \({}^{\text{d},\text{e}}\) & 0.54 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 3.54 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 1.91 & 268.46 & 5.74 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 35.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.19 & 15.69 \\  & V3 & 12.51 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 0.40 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 3.85 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.86 & 271.45 & 5.27 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 31.98 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.75 & 16.94 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Plastic Tunnels**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{’Rocio’} & 15.99 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.43 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 3.77 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 1.59 & 279.28 & 4.53 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 30.96 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 2.17 & 15.03 \\  & V2 & 14.76 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.29 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 2.03 & 268.33 & 5.67 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 35.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.36 & 16.00 \\  & V3 & 13.27 \({}^{\text{c},\text{d}}\) & 0.29 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.13 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.81 & 272.22 & 4.70 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 31.28 \({}^{\text{b},\text{c}}\) & 2.82 & 16.93 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different letters within a column indicate significant differences by LSD test. SSC: soluble solids content (\({}^{\text{c}}\)Brix); TA: tittatable acidity (% citric acid); firmness (N); L\({}^{\star}\): lightness; h\({}^{\circ}\): hue angle; C\({}^{\star}\): chroma; weight (g); size (mm).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Effects of cultivation system and genotype on the parameters evaluated for blueberry fruits. Interactions V \(\times\) SY  
Regarding the interaction between genotype and sampling year, the studied parameters were influenced in a different manner depending on the cultivar and the sampling year, except for firmness and lightness (Tables 1 and 4). These cultivars showed an increase in acidity in 2012. Thereby, V3 was the most affected with an increase of 62%, while V2 and 'Rocio' increasing by 34% and 26%, respectively. As regards SCC, different trends were observed between varieties and sampling years. Thus, the 'Rocio' cultivar showed an increase of 14% in SSC in 2012, while V2 had a significant decrease and no significant differences were found for this parameter for V3 between years (Table 4). With regard to color parameters, the berries from the 'Rocio' and V3 cultivars showed higher h and C* values (bluer berries with a more vivid blue) in 2012, while the V2 berries showed a similar color (h, C* and L* values) in both sampling years (Table 4). The average size and weight of the berries for each year depended on the cultivar. The 'Rocio' berries were bigger and heavier in 2012 than in 2011. The experimental cultivars V2 and V3 produced heavier berries in 2011 than in 2012 and of a similar size in both sampling years. Previous studies with blueberries also found significant interactions between year and cultivar in several parameters evaluated, such as SSC and acidity [22] and fruit weight [49], which is in agreement with our data.