## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Farm Site**} & **Cultivation** & **DMC** & \multirow{2}{*}{**pH Juice**} & **TA** & **TSS** & **Lycopene** & **Total Phenols** & **DPPH** \\  & **System** & **(\%)** & & **pH Juice** & **(\(\mathbf{\text{G}}\)****Citic Acid** & **(\(\mathbf{\text{G}}\)****Brix)** & **(\(\mathbf{\text{mg}}\)****100 g\({}^{-1}\)****FW)** & **(\(\mathbf{\text{mg}}\)****GAE)** & **(\(\mathbf{\text{mg}}\)****TE** \\  & & & & **100 g\({}^{-1}\)****FW)** & & **100 g\({}^{-1}\)****FW)** & **100 g\({}^{-1}\)****FW)** \\ \hline Livorno 1 & Soilless & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 42.8 \(\pm\) 6.3 & 47.6\(\pm\) 7.3 \\ Lucca 1 & Soilless & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 2.3 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 39.2 \(\pm\) 4.7 & 38.7 \(\pm\) 10.1 \\ Lucca 2 & Soilless & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 4.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 46.2 \(\pm\) 7.3 & 90.5 \(\pm\) 9.2 \\ Pisa 1 & Soil & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 61.6 \(\pm\) 6.7 & 57.9 \(\pm\) 13.8 \\ Livorno 1 & Soil & 5.9 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 5.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 2.5 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 43.2 \(\pm\) 5.7 & 56.7 \(\pm\) 22.3 \\ Pisa 2 & Soil & 6.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.0 & 3.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 81.7 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 62.2 \(\pm\) 13.4 \\ \hline LSD & 0.58 & 0.11 & 0.06 & 0.35 & 1.26 & 13.00 & 20.67 \\ \hline Soiless & 5.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 b & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.5 b & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.49 a & 43.2 \(\pm\) 6.2 b & 56.1 \(\pm\) 25.2 a \\ Soil & 6.0 \(\pm\) 0.8 a & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 4.9 \(\pm\) 0.1 a & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.50 a & 60.1 \(\pm\) 17.3 a & 60.2 \(\pm\) 14.9 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Mean values of three independent biological determinations (n = 3) \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) followed by different letters are statistically different (\(p<\) 0.05) according to the Least Significant Difference test (LSD).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Quality parameters of Pisanello tomatoes grown on six different farms in Tuscany in soilless and soil systems during spring/summer 2020 (harvested in July 2020). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Tomato Varieties and County**} & **Growing** & \multirow{2}{*}{**TPC 1**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**DPPH 2**} & **Lycopene 3** & **Reference** \\  & **Conditions** & & & & & \\ \hline Pisanello tomato, spring–summer & Soilless & & & & & Department of \\
2021. Pisa, Tuscany, Italy & greenhouse & & & & & Agriculture, Food and \\  & & greenhouse & & & & & Environment \\  & & & & & & & University of Pisa. \\  & & & & & & & Data not published yet \\ \hline Eight traditional varieties and one & & & & & & \\ commercial variety (Liscio da Serbo & & & & & \\ Toscano, Rosso di Pitigiano, & & & & & \\ Quarantino eco tipo (ec.) Valdarno, & & & & & \\ Fragola, Canestrino di Lucca, & & & & & \\ Costoluto Fiorentino, Giallo di & & & & & \\ Pitigiano, Pisanello, and Cuore di & & & & & \\ Bue, Tuscany, Italy & & & & & \\ Vesuvian Piennolo cherry tomato; six & & & & & \\ red-pigmented types and one & & & & & \\ yellow-pigmented tomato type, & & & & & \\ Southern Italy & & & & & \\ Vesuvian Piennolo cherry tomato, & & & & & \\ Regina tomato, a traditional & & & & & \\ long-storage landrace with three & & & & & \\ ecotypes, Puglia, Southern Italy & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Summary of some studies referring the range of bioactive compounds in tomato fruit in the Mediterranean area.