Five omic technologies are concordant in differentiating the biochemical characteristics of the berries of five grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars

Table 2 Berry physiological measurements at the harvest time point

Varietal	Treatment^a	Berry diameter (mm)^b	°Brix^c	TA (g l⁻¹)^cd
Cabernet Sauvignon	WW	11.16 (±0.07)	23.11 (±0.20)	8.43 (±0.25)
Cabernet Sauvignon	WD	11.09 (±0.07)	23.66 (±0.27)	8.42 (±0.29)
Merlot	WW	11.72 (±0.09)	22.99 (±0.23)	5.50 (±0.38)
Merlot	WD	11.55 (±0.08)	23.31 (±0.30)	6.06 (±0.43)
Pinot Noir	WW	12.09 (±0.07)	22.85 (±0.46)	5.80 (±0.09)
Pinot Noir	WD	11.51 (±0.07)	22.95 (±0.46)	6.12 (±0.24)
Chardonnay	WW	12.11 (±0.06)	23.35 (±0.39)	9.18 (±0.26)
Chardonnay	WD	12.07 (±0.07)	23.42 (±0.25)	8.83 (±0.44)
Semillon	WW	13.47 (±0.09)	23.18 (±0.40)	6.40 (±0.32)
Semillon	WD	13.29 (±0.09)	23.82 (±0.33)	6.53 (±0.28)

^aWW = well watered; WD = water deficit
^bMeasurements conducted on individual berries
^cMeasurements conducted on whole clusters
^dExpressed in g L ⁻¹ tartaric acid
Values are mean ± SE, with n = 3 for berry diameter and n = 6 for °Brix and titratable acidity (TA) measurements. Differences between treatments were determined to be significant (p-value < 0.01) by the Student’s t-test

ISSN: 1471-2164