## 3 Results
### Fruit Growth and Productivity
#### 3.4.2 Season 2016  
During the pit hardening (57-107 DAFB) and the first part of fruit cell expansion stages (107-140 DAFB), no differences for fruit volume and AGR were recorded among the four treatments (Table 4; Figure 7). Afterwards (140-164 DAFB), the average fruit volume for the period was similar among the treatments, while the absolute growth rate was higher in M and T (5.89 and 5.16 cm\({}^{3}\) day\({}^{-1}\), respectively) than in S and F, with values of 4.63 and 4.31 cm\({}^{3}\) day\({}^{-1}\), respectively (Table 4). Starting from 150 DAFB, a divergent pattern for AGR was observed comparing T and M versus F and S: while in the former treatments AGR continued to increase, in the latter ones it decreased (Figure 7B). Close to the harvest, the fruit volume of M and T was higher than F and S (Figure 7A). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**DAFB Range** & **Treatment** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **V** \\ **(cm\({}^{3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **AGR** \\ **(cm\({}^{3}\) day\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{57–107} & T & 35.99 & 0.73 \\  & M & 33.19 & 0.59 \\  & F & 35.45 & 0.73 \\  & S & 35.11 & 0.69 \\ \cline{2-3}  & _F-value_ & _0.44_ & _2.59_ \\  & _p-value_ & _0.731_ & _0.149_ \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{107–140} & T & 77.81 & 1.94 \\  & M & 73.17 & 1.64 \\  & F & 80.54 & 2.02 \\  & S & 73.17 & 1.77 \\ \cline{2-3}  & _F-value_ & _1.85_ & _1.67_ \\  & _p-value_ & _0.239_ & _0.271_ \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{140–164} & T & 190.61 & 5.16 \\  & M & 180.13 & 5.89 \\ \cline{1-1}  & F & 182.93 & 4.63 \\ \cline{1-1}  & S & 180.27 & 4.31 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-3}  & _F-value_ & _0.36_ & _8.51_ \\ \cline{1-1}  & _p-value_ & _0.785_ & _0.014_ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Average fruit volume (V) and absolute growth rate (AGR) recorded on T, M, F and S treatments in different fruit growth stages, in 2016. Within each stage, a by-time repeated ANOVA was performed. For each variable, different letters indicate a statistical difference at \(p\leq 0.05\). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Y** \\ **(t ha\({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **FW** \\ **(g)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **WPi** \\ **(kg m\({}^{-3}\))** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **TSS** \\ **(°Brix)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **FF** \\ **(kg cm\({}^{-2}\))** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **RC** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline T & 11.91 & 149.45 & a & 7.22 & b & 18.07 & 3.01 & ab & 58.33 & b \\ M & 10.82 & 166.94 & a & 12.23 & a & 17.34 & 2.18 & b & 92.31 & a \\ F & 10.96 & 112.91 & b & 6.64 & b & 18.73 & 3.70 & a & 55.00 & a \\ S & 10.44 & 93.61 & b & 11.79 & a & 18.37 & 2.85 & ab & 56.67 & a \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{_F-value_} & _0.70_ & _17.59_ & _17.32_ & _2.02_ & _5.12_ & & _7.48_ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{_p-value_} & _0.571_ & _<0.001_ & \textless{}0.002_ & _0.169_ & _0.019_ & & _0.005_ & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Yield (Y), fruit fresh weight (FW), water productivity (WPi), sugar content (TSS) flesh firmness (FF) and fruit skin red overcolor, measured on the 4 treatments under investigation in 2015. Data were subjected to ANCOVA analysis, considering the number of fruits per tree as a covariate variable and were adjusted accordingly. For each variable, different letters indicate a statistical difference at \(p\leq 0.05\). In 2016, the harvest occurred on 26 August (165 DAFB) with a single pick. Even in this season a late fruit drop affected the imposed crop load. The ANCOVA showed a significant effect of the number of fruits as a covariate variable for yield (F = 126.95; \(p<0.001\)) and WPi (F = 76.84; \(p<0.001\)), whose values have been adjusted accordingly. Y was similar for the four treatments, with values ranging from 16.78 t ha\({}^{-1}\) (M) to 13.56 t ha\({}^{-1}\) (F).