APS_July2023

145 G rape 545 546 547 Table 5. Concentration and relative proportion of anthocyanins in ‘Xinyu’ grape skins harvested from 548 vines of three trellis systems. 549 546 547 Table 5. Concentration and relative proportion of anthocyanins in ‘Xinyu’ grape skins harvested from 548 vines of three trellis systems. 549 546 547 Table 5. Concentration and relative proportion of anthocyanins in ‘Xinyu’ grape skins harvested from 548 vines of three trellis systems. 549 Table 5. Concentration and relative proportion of anthocyanins in ‘Xinyu’ grape skins harvested from vines of three trellis systems.

Anthocyanin content (µg·g -1 ) Anthocyanin content (µg·g -1 ) Anthocyanin content (µg·g -1 )

Anthocyanin proportion (%) Anthocyanin proportion (%) Anthocyanin proportion (%)

Anthocyanin modification Anthocyanin modification Anthocyanin modification

SDTS-H SDTS-H SDTS-H

ISDTS-H ISDTS-H ISDTS-H

ISDTS-VH ISDTS-VH ISDTS-VH 8.27±1.24 b 6.26±0.94 b 0.02±0.00 b 613.3±92.1 b 463.54±12.2 a 224.68±33.8 b 6.26±0.94 0.02±0.00 613.3±92.1 b 463.54±12.2 a 224.68±33.8 b 8.27±1.24 b 6.26±0.94 b 0.02±0.00 b 613.3±92.1 b 463.54±12.2 a 224.68±33.8 b 8.27±1.24 b

SDTS-H SDTS-H SDTS-H

ISDTS-H ISDTS-H 2.72±0.15 a 1.27±0.03 0.04±0.00 96.0±0.1 b 56.12±17 b 42.44±1.4 a ISDTS-H 2.72±0.15 a 1.27±0.03 a 0.04±0.00 a 96.0±0.1 b 56.12±17 b 42.44±1.4 a 2.72±0.15 a 1.27±0.03 a 0.04±0.00 a 96.0±0.1 b 56.12±17 b 42.44±1.4 a

ISDTS-VH ISDTS-VH 1.32±0.08 b 1.00±0.08 0.03±0.00 97.7±0.2 a 67.45±3.6 a ISDTS-VH 1.32±0.08 b 1.00±0.08 b 0.03±0.00 b 97.7±0.2 a 67.45±3.6 a 1.32±0.08 b 1.00±0.08 b 0.03±0.00 b 97.7±0.2 a 67.45±3.6 a

Acetylated Acetylated Coumaroylatedd Acetylated Coumaroylatedd Coumaroylatedd Coffeelation Coffeelation Coffeelation Non-acylated Methylated Non-acylated Methylated Non-methylated Non-acylated Methylated Non-methylated

5.30±0.1 c z 5.35±0.1 b 0.01±0.0 c 5.30±0.1 c z 5.35±0.1 b 0.01±0.0 c 361.43±7.2 5.30±0.1 c z 5.35±0.1 b 0.01±0.0 c

22.07±0.56 a 10.37±0.26 a 0.03±0.00 a 22.07±0.56 a 10.37±0.26 0.03±0.00 a 465.09±11.0 a 22.07±0.56 a 10.37±0.26 a 0.03±0.00 a

1.06±0.06 c 1.03±0.01 b 0.02±0.00 b 97.9±01.1 a 69.37±1.2 a 30.79±1.3 b 1.06±0.06 c 1.03±0.01 b 0.02±0.00 97.9±01.1 a 69.37±1.2 30.79±1.3 b 1.06±0.06 c 1.03±0.01 b 0.02±0.00 b 97.9±01.1 a 69.37±1.2 a 30.79±1.3 b

510.1±10.2 b 779.3±19.7 a 361.43±7.2 b 465.09±11.0 a 159.56±3.1 c 348.30±8.79 a 510.1±10.2 b 779.3±19.7 a 159.56±3.1 c 348.30±8.79 510.1±10.2 b 779.3±19.7 a 361.43±7.2 b 465.09±11.0 a 159.56±3.1 c 348.30±8.79 a

Non-methylated 32.55±3.6 b z Values are means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Values within rows and response variable 550 followed by common letters do not differ at the 5% level of significance, by Duncan’s multiple range test. 551 32.55±3.6 b z Values are means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Values within rows and response variable 550 followed by common letters do not differ at the 5% level of significance, by Duncan’s multiple range test. 551 32.55±3.6 b z Values are means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Values within rows and response variable 550 followed by common letters do not differ at the 5% level of significance, by Duncan’s multiple range test. 551 z Values are means ± standard deviation of three replicates. Values within rows and response variable followed by common letters do not differ at the 5% level of significance, by Duncan’s multiple range test

anin concentrations were highest for ISDTS HH (Table 5). The proportion of methylated anthocyanins was significantly lower for ISDTS-H than for SDTS-H and ISDTS-VH, but the proportion of nonmethylated anthocy anins was relatively high, with no difference between SDTS-H and ISDTS-VH. Acety lated and coumaroylated anthocyanins were dominant in berry skin whereas coffeelation and acylation were detected at low levels. The proportion and concentration of acylated anthocyanins were significantly higher for ISDTS-H than for SDTS-H and ISDTS-VH. Discussion Effect of trellis system on grape vine structure Training/Trellis system and canopy man agement are integral components of vineyard management because of their impact on the microclimate within the canopy (Tsolova et al., 2007). The leaf curtain of grape vines is influenced by the trellis system and new shoot management, and training systems influence total leaf area (Wang et al., 2019). In this study we found that the trellis system im pacted the canopy thickness, length, width, and area. Plant spacing and management of new shoots with SDTS-H enhanced apical dominance producing a thicker leaf curtain

and higher leaf area index (Pan et al., 2017). Shi et al. (2015) observed that V-shape leaf curtain also had obvious apical dominance, producing a thicker leaf curtain and greater the leaf area index, the results in this experi ment were consistent with the previous ob servations. Effect of trellis system on fruit quality Previous studies showed that in cooler cli mates, yield components, berry weight, berry diameter, total soluble solids, and titratable acidity did not differ among trellis systems (Olson et al., 2021), and berry total antho cyanin concentrations at harvest were not greatly affected by training system (Wolf et al., 2003). In this study, TSS and solid/acid of ‘Xinyu’ grape were significantly higher when grown under ISDTS trellis systems compared to that under the SDTS system. For dry culti vation, ISDTS may promote the degradation of fruit sugars and organic acids, and ber ries within the relatively open clusters may experience greater temperature differences between day and night. Unlike the relatively closed SDTS-H system, the ISDTS system may not be conducive for accumulation of sugars and for anthocyanins. The increase in photosynthetic area with ISDTS-VH promot ed the accumulation of more nutrients com-