Description of olive morphological parameters by using open access software

Table 3 Statistical analysis of morphological data

	Morphological parameter	ANOVA (p-values)	Multiple comparison Tukey–Kramer
Fruit	Area-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5
	Perim-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)7
	Hght-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6\(\ne\)7
	MaxTrDiam-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)7
	minCntTr-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)7
	TrSym-A	< 0.0001	5\(\ne\)6\(\ne\)7
	ShIdx-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6
	Circ-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6
	ApCur-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6\(\ne\)7
	BasCur-A	< 0.0001	2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4
	NippleIdx-A	< 0.0001	–
	ShIdx-B	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)7
	VerSym-B	< 0.0001	3\(\ne\)5
Leaf	Area	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)7
	Perimeter	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6
	ShIdx	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)6\(\ne\)7
	MaxTrDiam	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)6
	VerSym	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)6
	TipCur	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5
	Circ	< 0.0001	3\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6
Endocarp	Area-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)6\(\ne\)7
	Perim-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6
	TrSym-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5
	ShIdx-A	< 0.0001	2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)5
	ApCur-A	< 0.0001	2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)6\(\ne\)7
	BasCur-A	< 0.0001	3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)7
	Circ-A	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)6
	VerSym-B	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)3\(\ne\)5
	ShIdx-B	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)4\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6
	StArConv-C	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)3
	DiamIncrCir-C	< 0.0001	1\(\ne\)2\(\ne\)5\(\ne\)6\(\ne\)7

The one-way ANOVA showed that all the morphological parameters of the seven cultivars were statistically different (p-values \(<\,0.0001\)). The morphological parameters discriminated either all or some of the seven olive cultivars as revealed by the Tukey–Kramer multiple comparisons

ISSN: 1746-4811