Table 1.
Effects of biostimulants on the fruit appearance quality.
| Treatment | Fruit weight (g/fruit) | Firmness (kg.cm−2) | TSS (%) | TA (%) | TSS/TA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CK | 45.88 ± 2.91b | 16.90 ± 1.21ab | 9.41 ± 0.07c | 0.87 ± 0.03a | 10.80 ± 0.37c |
| AN | 51.30 ± 1.76a | 19.14 ± 2.48a | 11.83 ± 0.06b | 0.79 ± 0.06ab | 15.11 ± 1.13b |
| AG | 45.29 ± 2.74b | 17.28 ± 2.36ab | 12.15 ± 0.28ab | 0.77 ± 0.05ab | 15.78 ± 1.01ab |
| WG | 51.43 ± 2.38a | 13.54 ± 1.30ab | 9.72 ± 0.12c | 0.69 ± 0.03c | 14.03 ± 0.42b |
| GS | 54.17 ± 1.80a | 14.42 ± 2.22b | 12.37 ± 0.24a | 0.67 ± 0.08d | 18.79 ± 2.68a |
Values are mean ± SD (n=10). Different letters indicate significantlences among treatments at p< 0.05 by one-way ANOVA test. Treatments: CK, control; AN, humic acid; AF, seaweed extract; WG, seaweed extract; GS, amino acid.