## 3 Results
Figure 3: Cane girdling impact on kiwifruits’ (**a**) fruit dry matter percentage (%), (**b**) dry matter per fruit (g), (**c**) fruit weight (g), (**d**) fruit length (mm), (**e**) fruit narrow diameter (mm), (**f**) fruit wide diameter (mm), (**g**) ratio of length to narrow diameter and (**h**) ratio of length to wide diameter during August, September, at harvest, and post-storage. 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. Different letters above columns, separately in September, at harvest, and post-storage, indicate statistically significant differences based on [PERSON]’s HSD test at \(\alpha\) = 0.05. Bars on the columns indicate the standard deviation. The length of kiwifruits remained consistent across all treatments during September and post-storage. However, at harvest, the fruits from GA-treated vines were characterized by a greater length compared to the control and GAS treatment (Figure 3d). Furthermore, the fruits of GS-treated vines exhibited the highest narrow diameter both at harvest and post-storage (Figure 3e), while all treatments showed similar wide diameters, with no significant differences observed (Figure 3f). The effect of girdling treatments on fruit pulp pH, TA, TSS, and the ratio of TSS to TA during harvest was not found to be significant (Table 1). Additionally, control fruits exhibited the highest firmness (38.03 N) without any significant difference from the other treatments. Post-storage, similar pH and TA levels were observed among all treatments. However, the girdling treatments (GA, GS, and GAS) resulted in higher TSS content and higher ratios of TSS to TA compared to the control (Table 1). It was also noted that control fruits displayed the highest firmness (7.66 N), whereas the other treatments showed significantly lower firmness values ranging from 3.84 to 5.00 N.  
In Table 2, it can be observed that girdling treatments did not significantly affect the concentration of chlorophylls or carotenoids in the fruits, both at harvest and post-storage. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control** & **GA** & **GS** & **GAS** \\ \hline
**Harvest** & & & & \\ \hline pH & 2.87 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & 2.86 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 2.89 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 2.89 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\ TA & 2.59 \(\pm\) 0.28 a & 2.57 \(\pm\) 0.12 a & 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.29 a & 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.33 a \\ TSS & 6.33 \(\pm\) 0.49 a & 6.15 \(\pm\) 0.42 a & 5.73 \(\pm\) 0.57 a & 6.12 \(\pm\) 0.27 a \\ TSS:TA & 2.66 \(\pm\) 0.82 a & 2.43 \(\pm\) 0.57 a & 2.26 \(\pm\) 0.40 a & 2.36 \(\pm\) 0.68 a \\ Firmness (N) & 38.03 \(\pm\) 1.28 a & 35.75 \(\pm\) 4.76 a & 36.41 \(\pm\) 2.30 a & 37.73 \(\pm\) 3.12 a \\ \hline
**Storage** & & & & \\ \hline pH & 3.09 \(\pm\) 0.14 a & 3.01 \(\pm\) 0.04 a & 3.01 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 3.03 \(\pm\) 0.03 a \\ TA & 2.23 \(\pm\) 0.24 a & 2.25 \(\pm\) 0.14 a & 2.26 \(\pm\) 0.21 a & 2.21 \(\pm\) 0.14 a \\ TSS & 12.24 \(\pm\) 0.55 b & 13.74 \(\pm\) 0.39 a & 13.68 \(\pm\) 0.89 a & 13.85 \(\pm\) 0.72 a \\ TSS:TA & 5.54 \(\pm\) 0.65 b & 6.27 \(\pm\)0.42 a & 6.29 \(\pm\) 0.57 a & 6.09 \(\pm\) 0.49 a \\ Firmness (N) & 7.66 \(\pm\) 1.26 a & 4.16 \(\pm\) 0.79 b & 5.00 \(\pm\) 1.66 b & 3.84 \(\pm\) 0.78 b \\ \hline \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; GS, kiwifruit cane girdling conducted in August; GAS, kiwifruit cane girdling conducted both in August and September.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Cane girdling impact on kiwifruits’ organoleptic characteristics (pH, total soluble solids (TSS, \({}^{\circ}\)Brix), tittatable acidity (TA, % \(w/v\) citric acid), and the ratio of total soluble solids:tittatable acidity (TSS:TA)) at harvest and post-storage.