Article Figures & Data
Figures
Tables
Supplemental Data
Supplemental Table 1 Calendar dates for berry sampling from Cabernet franc vines by location and phenology in 2008 and 2009.
Supplemental Table 2 Accumulated rainfall, growing degree days (GDD), and mean temperature by phenological stage and for total growing season for each site in 2008 and 2009.
Supplemental Table 3 Means and standard deviations for Brix, titratable acidity (TA), pH, and IBMP concentration for each panel (n = 10 vines) at harvest and IBMP concentration in resulting wines in 2008. As the mean values for IBMP in berries are not weighted based on the yield from each vine, and as yield varied among sites, it is possible for wine IBMP to be higher than grape IBMP for a given panel.
Supplemental Table 4 Partial least squares regression models: basic statistics of the models and regression coefficients of x variables for the best model for log-fold decrease IBMP from 50 DAA to harvest (y variable) in Cabernet franc berries in 2008 and 2009.
Supplemental Table 5 Partial least squares regression models: loadings of the x variables for components in the log-fold decrease in IBMP from 50 DAA to harvest models.
Supplemental Table 6 Analysis of variance of 2008 and 2009 wine ratings: p values, degrees of freedom (df), and mean squared error (MSE).
Supplemental Figure 1 Loading plot for all partial least squares regression models: IBMP concentration at 50 DAA in Cabernet franc berries at all sites in (A) 2008 and (B) 2009.
Supplemental Figure 2 Correlation between intensity of herbaceous aroma and intensity of fruity aroma for 2008 and 2009 Cabernet franc wines. Coefficient of determination = 0.40 (2008) and 0.62 (2009). Regression equation = -0.29x + 4.79 (2008) and -0.86x + 7.40 (2009).Files in this Data Supplement: