## 3 Results and Discussion
### Deficit Irrigation Effect on the Morphological and Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Tomato
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Accumulate** \\ **Applied** \\ **Water** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Leaf Water** \\ **Potential** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Stress** \\ **Integral** \\ **Integral** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Minimum** \\ **Potential** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Harvest** \\ **Havest** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
**mm** & **MPa** & **MPa day\({}^{-1}\)** & **MPa** & **g plant \({}^{-1}\)** \\ \hline
**ANOVA Test \({}^{\ddagger}\)** & & & & \\  & & & & & \\
1 & \({}^{*}\) & NS & NS & NS & NS \\
2 & \({}^{*}\) & NS & NS & NS & NS \\
3 & \({}^{*}\) & NS & NS & NS & NS \\
4 & \({}^{*}\) & NS & NS & NS & NS \\
5 & \({}^{*}\) & NS & NS & NS & NS \\
6 & \({}^{*}\) & NS & NS & \({}^{*}\) & NS \\
**Tukey Multiple Range Test \({}^{\ddagger}\)** & & & & & \\
**
\begin{tabular}{c} _Control_ \\ _RDI_ \\ \end{tabular} & \(350\) a & \(-0.41\) & \(13.4\) & \(-0.68\) & \(190\) \\
**
\begin{tabular}{c} _RDI_ \\ \end{tabular} & \(180\) b & \(-0.38\) & \(19.4\) & \(-0.90\) & \(219\) \\
**
\begin{tabular}{c} _Week_ \\ \end{tabular} & & & & & \\
**
\begin{tabular}{c} _Control_ \\ \end{tabular} & \(438\) a & \(-0.67\) & \(16.6\) & \(-0.68\) & \(669\) \\ _RDI_ & \(226\) b & \(-0.73\) & \(25.3\) & \(-0.90\) & \(511\) \\
**
\begin{tabular}{c} _Control_ \\ \end{tabular} & \(502\) a & \(-0.58\) & \(18.7\) & \(-0.68\) & \(1039\) \\ _RDI_ & \(290\) b & \(-0.53\) & \(28.4\) & \(-0.90\) & \(969\) \\
**
\begin{tabular}{c} _Control_ \\ \end{tabular} & \(558\) a & \(-0.44\) & \(20.0\) & \(-0.68\) & \(570\) \\ _RDI_ & \(290\) b & \(-0.58\) & \(30.3\) & \(-0.90\) & \(422\) \\
**
\begin{tabular}{c} _Week_ \\ \end{tabular} & & & & & \\ _Control_ & \(614\) a & \(-0.63\) & \(21.6\) & \(-0.70\) b & \(294\) \\ _RDI_ & \(290\) b & \(-0.75\) & \(32.9\) & \(-0.91\) a & \(340\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\dagger}\) NS = not significant at \(p<0.05\); \({}^{\star}\) significant at \(p<0.05\). \({}^{\ddagger}\) The values (mean of 4 replications)  
followed by the same letter within the same column do not present statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) according to the Tukey Multiple Range Test. RDI, Regulated deficit irrigation.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Fruit yield and crop water status. The color of tomatoes is mainly linked to the lycopene content and is by far the most important quality parameter as is the first characteristic to be evaluated by consumers. This is because color is the single most important product-intrinsic sensory indicator when it comes to setting people's expectations regarding the likely taste and flavor of tomatoes [30]. In the present study, in general, higher red color was found in tomatoes growth under water stress conditions, as shown by higher values of the color coordinates a* and Chroma (C). A higher increase in red color notes was also reported in the scientific literature, in which the authors found a significantly increase in red color of tomatoes with the increase in water deficit of tomatoes (Lycopersion sculemum Mill. cultivar Ryna\({}^{\circledR}\)) [31]. Besides tomatoes, other crops such as almond increased their red skin color due to the increment in polyphenols content (responsible for color) as a consequence of water deficit conditions [4]. These changes in the red color can be linked to an advance of the ripening process of the tomatoes, reduction of the turgor pressure, a burst in ethylene production and synthesis of lycopene; this hypothesis will be checked along in the next sections. Overall, it is important to highlight that RDI increased the red color as well as size and weight of the tomatoes, which means a greater marketable success because the most important aspects in consumers choice were reported to be color, together with juice and size [31].