## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Experimental Treatment** & **Chloride** & **Potassium** & **Calcium** & **Sodium** & **Ammonium** & **Magnesium** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**(g kg\({}^{-1}\) d.w.)**} \\ \hline Cultivar (Cv) & & & & & \\ Mars & 17.6 b & 66.1 a & 24.3 ab & 5.0 ab & 3.9 b & 4.8 \\ Naples & 21.0 a & 66.6 a & 24.0 ab & 4.4 c & 4.2 a & 4.9 \\ Tricia & 18.6 ab & 65.0 ab & 25.8 a & 5.2 a & 2.6 d & 5.0 \\ Venice & 19.0 ab & 61.4 b & 25.8 a & 4.4 c & 2.7 d & 4.9 \\ Olivetta & 20.6 a & 62.0 b & 22.7 b & 4.5 bc & 3.4 c & 4.7 \\  & & & & & & n.s. \\ \hline Biostimulant formulation (B) & & & & & \\ Control & 18.6 & 64.0 & 25.4 a & 4.6 & 3.1 b & 4.9 \\ _Cystoseira tamariscifolia_ & 19.3 & 64.2 & 24.9 ab & 4.8 & 3.3 ab & 4.8 \\ Protein hydrolysate & 19.1 & 63.8 & 24.5 ab & 4.7 & 3.4 a & 4.8 \\ _Spirulina platensis_ & 20.5 & 65.0 & 23.4 b & 4.8 & 3.6 a & 4.7 \\  & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & & n.s. \\ \hline Crop cycle (Cy) & & & & & & \\ Autumn & 20.8 a & 62.2 b & 25.8 a & 4.4 b & 3.9 a & 4.9 b \\ Autumn-winter & 16.8 b & 66.6 a & 23.0 b & 5.3 a & 2.6 c & 5.1 a \\ Winter & 20.3 a & 64.1 ab & 24.8 a & 4.4 b & 3.4 b & 4.5 b \\ Interaction & & & & & & \\ \hline Cu \(\times\) B & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. \\ \hline Cu \(\times\) Cy & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. \\ \hline B \(\times\) Cy & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. & n.s. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Mean effects of cultivar, biostimulant formulation, and crop cycle on mineral element composition. Figure 8: Interaction between biostimulant formulation and crop cycle on the ammonium content in rocket leaves. Values followed by different letters are significantly different at \(p<0.05\) (Tukey’s test). As for the comparison between the cultivars within each crop cycle, the highest ammonium content was detected in autumn in the variety Mars, autumn-winter in Mars and Naples, and winter in Naples and Olivetta. A significant interaction was detected between cultivar and biostimulant formulation on the content of phosphate in rocket leaves (Figure 9). Indeed, in the cultivar Mars, the treatment with _Spirulina platensis_ produced a significant decrease in phosphate, compared to the untreated control and the other two biostimulants; no significant differences between the biostimulant formulations, even compared to the control, were detected within the other varieties. As for the comparison between the cultivars within each biostimulant formulation, the highest phosphate content was recorded in the control leaves of the variety Mars, compared to Tricia, Venice, and Olivetta; in Mars and Naples, under _Cystoseira tamariscifolia_ application; in Mars, compared to Tricia, Venice, and Olivetta, upon protein hydrolysate treatment; and in Naples, compared to Tricia and Olivetta, under _Spirulina platensis_ supply. The principal component analysis (Figure 10) shows the arrangement of the dependent variables analyzed in this study in relation to the three experimental factors applied. Principal component 1 demonstrates that the crop cycle priority determined the distribution of biostimulant treatment combinations with wild rocket cultivars. The treatments that were most affected by the initial and final experimental conditions (autumn and winter) are placed in the right side, whereas those exhibiting the highest efficacy during the intermediate cycle (autumn-winter) are displayed in the left side. The variables that were best affected by the experimental treatments were oxalate, malate, sodium, phosphate, magnesium, and potassium, in the intermediate crop cycle, and sulfate, chloride, ammonium, citrate, and calcium in autumn and winter. Figure 9: Interaction between cultivar and biostimulant formulation on the phosphate content in rocket leaves. Values followed by different letters are significantly different at \(p<0.05\) (Tukey’s test).