## 3 Results

Table 4: Cane girdling impact on kiwifruits’ organic acids concentration (expressed as mg g\({}^{-1}\) FW) at harvest and post-storage. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  & **Control** & **GA** & **GS** & **GAS** \\ \hline
**Harvest** & & & & \\ \hline Fructose & 11.22 \(\pm\) 3.19 a & 13.54 \(\pm\) 4.76 a & 16.06 \(\pm\) 5.10 a & 14.60 \(\pm\) 4.62 a \\ Glucose & 6.13 \(\pm\) 1.59 a & 7.16 \(\pm\) 1.65 a & 7.74 \(\pm\) 1.82 a & 7.51 \(\pm\) 1.66 a \\ Sucrose & 0.74 \(\pm\) 0.72 a & 1.18 \(\pm\) 0.93 a & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.75 a & 1.40 \(\pm\) 0.54 a \\ Inositol & 2.31 \(\pm\) 0.65 a & 1.94 \(\pm\) 0.63 a & 2.44 \(\pm\) 0.75 a & 2.23 \(\pm\) 0.54 a \\ Total sugars & 20.40 \(\pm\) 5.16 a & 23.82 \(\pm\) 5.18 a & 26.94 \(\pm\) 6.64 a & 25.75 \(\pm\) 7.54 a \\ \hline
**Storage** & & & & \\ \hline Fructose & 53.08 \(\pm\) 9.87 a & 57.52 \(\pm\) 3.04 a & 56.35 \(\pm\) 5.80 a & 55.97 \(\pm\) 6.94 a \\ Glucose & 27.19 \(\pm\) 4.62 a & 28.93 \(\pm\) 1.61 a & 28.19 \(\pm\) 2.80 a & 28.04 \(\pm\) 3.58 a \\ Sucrose & 8.49 \(\pm\) 1.25 a & 9.13 \(\pm\) 0.59 a & 9.07 \(\pm\) 2.01 a & 9.57 \(\pm\) 1.53 a \\ Inositol & 0.93 \(\pm\) 1.03 a & 1.15 \(\pm\) 0.22 a & 1.16 \(\pm\) 0.22 a & 1.19 \(\pm\) 0.22 a \\ Total sugars & 89.69 \(\pm\) 13.25 a & 96.73 \(\pm\) 5.13 a & 94.77 \(\pm\) 9.91 a & 94.77 \(\pm\) 11.89 a \\ \hline \end{tabular} Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation within the same row followed by the same lowercase letter, do not differ significantly according to [PERSON]’s HSD multiple range test, at a = 0.05. Abbreviations: GA, kiwifruit cane girdling conducted in August; GS, kiwifruit cane girdling conducted both in August and September.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cane girdling impact on kiwifruits’ soluble sugars (expressed as mg g\({}^{-1}\) FW) at harvest and post-storage. treatments. Regarding the antioxidant capacity at harvest, it ranged from 1.35 to 1.45 umol equiv. Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) FW, as measured by the FRAP assay, and from 0.88 to 1.17 umol equiv. Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) FW, as measured by the DPPH assay (Table 5). The lowest antioxidant capacity of the pulp was measured in fruits produced under control conditions (based on both assays), while fruits produced under GS treatment exhibited the highest values, with a significant difference from the control one. Post-storage, the control fruits exhibited the lowest concentration of total phenols and total flavanols, with significant differences from fruits produced after the GA and GAS treatments (Table 5). In contrast, the concentration of total \(o\)-diphenyls was highest under control conditions (15.6 \(\upmu\)g g\({}^{-1}\) FW), while the other treatments ranged from 13.1 to 15.6 \(\upmu\)g\({}^{-1}\) FW. Furthermore, the GS treatment resulted in the highest concentration of total flavonoids in the fruits (16.7 \(\upmu\)g\({}^{-1}\) FW), with significant differences from the other two girdling treatments. Based on the FRAP assay, there were not any significant differences among treatments concerning the antioxidant capacity of the fruit, ranging from 1.41 to 1.46 umol equiv. Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) FW. However, according to the DPPH assay, the fruits produced under control conditions presented the lowest value of antioxidant activity (0.53 umol equiv. Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) FW), while the girdling treatments ranged from 0.88 to 1.00 umol equiv. Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) FW, with a significant difference from control (Table 5). According to Figure 4, consuming a single kiwifruit produced under any of the three girdling treatments provides health benefits compared to consuming a fruit produced under control conditions. This is because the total phenolic content consumed, along with the antioxidant capacity measured by the DPPH assay, is greater.