## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Control** & **GA** & **GS** & **GAS** \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Harvest**} & & & \\ \hline Total phenols & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.04 a \\ Total \(o\)-diphenyls & 10.0 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 8.9 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 9.6 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 9.8 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ Total flavanols & 3.3 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 2.8 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 2.6 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ Total flavonoids & 17.0 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 12.4 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 15.3 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 16.0 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ FRAP & 1.35 \(\pm\) 0.11 b & 1.41 \(\pm\) 0.10 ab & 1.45 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & 1.40 \(\pm\) 0.10 ab \\ DPPH & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.17 b & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.23 ab & 1.17 \(\pm\) 0.36 a & 1.08 \(\pm\) 0.14 ab \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Storage**} & & & \\ \hline Total phenols & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.06 b & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.05 ab & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.10 a & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.06 a \\ Total \(o\)-diphenyls & 15.6 \(\pm\) 1.9 a & 13.3 \(\pm\) 1.6 ab & 13.1 \(\pm\) 1.6 b & 15.1 \(\pm\) 2.5 ab \\ Total flavanols & 1.3 \(\pm\) 0.09 b & 2.2 \(\pm\) 0.1 ab & 2.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 a \\ Total flavonoids & 15.3 \(\pm\) 0.10 ab & 6.5 \(\pm\) 0.21 b & 16.7 \(\pm\) 0.17 a & 6.6 \(\pm\) 0.25 b \\ FRAP & 1.43 \(\pm\) 0.10 a & 1.41 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.12 a & 1.46 \(\pm\) 0.06 a \\ DPPH & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.09 b & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.12 a & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.20 a & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.18 a \\ \hline \end{tabular} Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation within the same row followed by the same letter, do not differ significantly according to [PERSON]’s HSD test, at a = 0.05. Abbreviations: GA, kiwifruit cane girdling conducted in August; GS, kiwifruit cane girdling conducted in August; GAS, kiwifruit cane girdling conducted both in August and September; DPPH, antioxidant capacity based on 2;2-diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazyl assay; FRAP, antioxidant capacity based on ferric reducing antioxidant power assay.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Cane girdling impact on kiwifruit total phenolic compounds concentration (total phenols, mg equiv. gallic acid g\({}^{-1}\) FW; total o-diphenyls, \(\upmu\)g equiv. caffe acid g\({}^{-1}\) FW; total flavanols, \(\upmu\)g equiv. catechhin g\({}^{-1}\) FW; total flavonoids, \(\upmu\)g equiv. Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) FW) at harvest and post-storage. The PCA analysis using all the measured parameters at harvest and after the storage period is presented in Figures S1 and S2, respectively. Both PCAs did not produce significant cumulative percentages, indicating possibly that more data were required to distinguish the treatments' impacts. Nonetheless, kiwifruits at harvest (taking into account both physiological parameters of the leaves and quality characteristics of the fruits) presented similar characteristics under all treatments, as there was no single area describing solely one treatment. On the other hand, though, after the storage period, it was obvious that fruits produced under the GS treatment presented unique properties, making them distinguishable from fruits produced under the control treatment. Based on the components' weight (data not presented), the TSS content, the dry weight percentage, and the dry weight per fruit was mainly used to distinguish between the two treatments (control against GS) post-storage.