Table 2.
Antioxidant compounds and antioxidant activities (DPPH activity and ABTS assay) evaluated on four tomato cultivars grown under well-watered and drought conditions.
| Parameters | Cultivars (C) | Water Treatments (T) | Analysis of Variance | LSD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well-Watered | Drought | C | T | C × T | C | T | C × T | ||
| Lycopene (mg/kg DW) |
Scoresby Dwarf | 21.1 ± 0.7 | 22.8 ± 0.5 | * | * | * | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.9 |
| Incas | 20.1 ± 0.2 | 21.4 ± 0.7 | |||||||
| Marmande | 18.8 ± 0.4 | 20.6 ± 0.3 | |||||||
| Window Box Red | 22.2 ± 0.4 | 26.3 ± 0.2 | |||||||
| Total phenolics (mg GAE/100 g DW) |
Scoresby Dwarf | 38.0 ± 0.6 | 48.6 ± 0.5 | * | * | * | 0.9 | 1.2 | 2.3 |
| Incas | 34.3 ± 0.6 | 46.9 ± 0.4 | |||||||
| Marmande | 32.7 ± 0.8 | 40.9 ± 0.4 | |||||||
| Window Box Red | 38.2 ± 0.3 | 49.3 ± 0.9 | |||||||
| Flavonoids (mg rutin/100 g DW) |
Scoresby Dwarf | 5.2 ± 0.1 | 6.1 ± 0.1 | * | * | * | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| Incas | 6.7 ± 0.0 | 1.7 ± 0.1 | |||||||
| Marmande | 4.8 ± 0.1 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | |||||||
| Window Box Red | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 6.9 ± 0.1 | |||||||
| DPPH (μmol trolox/g DW) |
Scoresby Dwarf | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.8 ± 0.0 | * | * | ns | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.1 |
| Incas | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | |||||||
| Marmande | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 1.4 ± 0.0 | |||||||
| Window Box Red | 1.3 ± 0.0 | 1.7 ± 0.0 | |||||||
| ABTS (μmol trolox/g DW) |
Scoresby Dwarf | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 3.2 ± 0.1 | * | * | * | 0.2 | 0.2 | 1.3 |
| Incas | 0.7 ± 0.10 | 2.6 ± 0.1 | |||||||
| Marmande | 0.7 ± 0.10 | 2.3± 0.1 | |||||||
| Window Box Red | 4.6 ± 0.07 | 5.1 ± 0.1 | |||||||
Values represent mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). ns = not significant; * The mean difference is significant at p < 0.05, LSD = least significant difference.