## 2 Results
### Antioxidant Capacity of Golden Mulberry Fruit at Various Harvesting Stages  
As shown in Figure 1A,B, the antioxidant activity of golden mulberry fruit determined by both 2,2\({}^{\prime}\)-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) methods showed that the highest total antioxidant capacity \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Indicator**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Time**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** & **T4** \\ \hline TSSs (\%) & 6.04 \(\pm\) 0.54 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 14.8 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 17.11 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 26.19 \(\pm\) 0.91 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ SSS (mg/g) & 113.21 \(\pm\) 3.15 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 296.93 \(\pm\) 5.20 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 349.79 \(\pm\) 9.04 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 282.06 \(\pm\) 8.04 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ TA (mg/g) & 26.62 \(\pm\) 0.77 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 19.71 \(\pm\) 2.95 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 13.61 \(\pm\) 1.39 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 19.93 \(\pm\) 1.66 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Total phenolic content (mg GAE/g) & 3.75 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 3.67 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 1.24 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ TSSs/TA & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 0.75 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 1.29 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 1.32 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ SSSs/TA & 4.22 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 20.06 \(\pm\) 0.45 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 25.70 \(\pm\) 1.57 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 14.22 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Data in the table are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard deviation. For each line, different lowercase letters correspond to values significantly different at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effect of maturity on compositional attributes of mulberry. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Indicator**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Time**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **T1** & **T2** & **T3** & **T4** \\ \hline Color & 14.15 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 17.38 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 18.68 \(\pm\) 0.77 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 16.92 \(\pm\) 0.64 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Juiciness & 2.90 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 13.62 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 17.45 \(\pm\) 0.75 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 19.35 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Sweetness & 8.43 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 12.43 \(\pm\) 0.47 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 18.67 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 19.27 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) \\ Sourness & 18.38 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 14.90 \(\pm\) 1.27 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 6.60 \(\pm\) 0.43 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.34 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) \\ Flavor & 2.98 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 9.65 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) & 18.28 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 14.93 \(\pm\) 0.63 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ Total score & 46.84 \(\pm\) 1.99 \({}^{\mathrm{d}}\) & 67.98 \(\pm\) 1.31 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) & 79.68 \(\pm\) 1.27 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 73.17 \(\pm\) 1.91 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: Data in the table are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard deviation. For each line, different lowercase letters correspond to values significantly different at \(p<0.05\).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Effect of maturity on the sensory score of golden mulberries. was found in the T1 phase, with a value of 4.03 mmol TE/100 g dry weight (DW) and 78.07 mmol Fe\({}^{2+}\) equivalents per 100 g DW, respectively. These values were significantly higher than those of the T2, T3, and T4 phases (\(p<0.05\)), with no significant differences among the T2, T3 and T4 phases (\(p>0.05\)). Figure 1C shows that the free radical scavenging activities of golden mulberry fruits were in the order of T1 \(>\) T2 \(>\) T4 \(>\) T3, with significant differences between different harvesting times.