Supplementary Material

Table S1. General features of Niagara Peninsula, Ontario Riesling vineyards used for natural yield variance study, 2010-2011.

Variable

Riesling sites

Buis Lambert Lowrey George Hughes Cave Spring

VQA sub-appellation Niagara Lakeshore

Four Mile Creek St. David’s Bench

Lincoln Lakeshore (north)

Lincoln Lakeshore (south)

Beamsville Bench

Area of vineyard block (ha)

3.39 0.81 2.29 1.23 2.63 2.22

Number of sentinel vines 74 75 84 70 72 75

Soil series a Tavistock 15; c >B

Chinguacousy 19; B=B

Brantford 12 Chinguacousy 24 (Washed Phase; CGU.W)

Jeddo 1 (1/3) North, Chinguacousy (2/3) South

Chinguacousy 14; c>B

Parent materials a 40-100 cm reddish-hued loamy textures over clay loam till

Mainly reddish-hued clay loam till

Lacustrine silty clay

Washed clay loam till, modified by lacustrine processes

Mainly clay loam till

15-40 cm loamy textures over clay loam

Soil drainage a Imperfect Imperfect to poor Moderately well

Imperfect to-poor Poor Imperfect to poor

Rootstock SO4 SO4 3309 SO4 3309 SO4

Vine age at initiation of trial (year planted)

1996 2000 2007 1995 2006 1978

Vine spacing (m; row X vine)

2.5 X 1.5 2.7 X 1.2 2.2 X 0.9 2.7 X 1.4 2.8 X 1.25 2.5 X 1.5

Number of rows; vines per row

58 rows; 10,940 vines

15 rows; 2400 vines

14 rows 29 rows 58 rows 45 rows; 6120 vines

42 @ 198v/r, 16 @ 164v/r

160 vines/row 376 vines/ row 137 vines/ row 137 vines/ row 136 vines/row

Training system Scott Henry

Scott Henry Guyot Guyot Guyot Pendelbogen

Floor management Clean cultivation

Alternate sod Clean Sod Alternate sod Alternate sod

a Kingston and Presant (1989)

Table S2. General features of Niagara Peninsula, Ontario Cabernet franc vineyards used for natural yield variance study, 2010-2011.

Variable

Cabernet franc sites

Buis Lambert Lowrey George Kocsis Cave Spring

VQA sub-appellation

Four Mile Creek

Niagara Lakeshore St. Davids Bench

Lincoln Lakeshore (north)

Lincoln Lakeshore (south)

Beamsville Bench

Area of vineyard block (ha)

2.47 0.81 2.63 1.23 1.13 1.54

Number of sentinel vines

76 77 84 72 81 75

Soil series a Jeddo 8 B>B

Chinguacousy 19: B=B

Brantford 12 Chinguacousy 24 (Washed Phase; CGU.W)

Trafalgar 7: c>B

Chinguacousy 14 (Loamy Phase; (CGU.L)

Parent materials a Mainly reddish hued clay loam till

Mainly reddish-hued clay loam till

Lacustrine silty clay

Washed clay loam till, modified by lacustrine processes

15-40 cm loamy textures over reddish-hued silty clay loam > 1 m thick over Queenston shale bedrock

15-40 cm loamy textures over clay loam till

Soil drainage a Poor Imperfect to poor Moderately well Imperfect-poor Imperfect Imperfect

Rootstock SO4 + 3309

SO4 3309 SO4 101-14

Vine age at initiation of trial (year planted)

1987 2000 2007 1995 1999

Vine spacing

(m; row X vine)

2.9 X 1.3 2.7 X 1.2 2.8 X 1.25 2.7m X 1.4 2.75 X 1.72 2.7 X 1.44

Number of rows; vines per row

56 rows , 8300 vines

15 rows; 2400 vines 14 rows 24 rows 77 rows 23 rows

118 vines/ row

160 vines/row 137 vines/ row 137 vines/ row 96 vines/ row 233 vines/ row

Training system Guyot Guyot Guyot Guyot Guyot Guyot

Floor management

Clean Alternate sod Alternate sod sod Clean Alternate sod

a Kingston and Presant (1989)

1 |

Table S3. Harvest dates and Brix at harvest for each site and different yield categories for grapes from six Riesling and five Cabernet franc vineyard sites used in the natural yield variance study, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 2010-2011.

Riesling2010

Vineyard Harvest date BrixHigh Medium Low

Buis 26 September 18.5 19.0 19.4Lambert 20 September 19.1 19.3 19.7Lowrey 29 September 19.1 19.8 18.7George 23 September 18.1 18.5 18.7Hughes 6 October 17.2 18.4 18.9Cave Spring 9 October 18.8 18.5 18.9

2011Buis 26 September 17.7 18.1 18.7Lambert ---- ---- ---- ----Lowrey 4 October 19.6 19.3 20.0George 19 October 18.1 18.5 18.6Hughes 6 October 19.0 19.2 19.2Cave Spring 9 October 18.6 18.9 19.2

Cabernet franc2010

Vineyard Harvest date BrixHigh Medium Low

Buis 18 October 23.0 24.3 24.8Lowrey 15 October 24.5 24.7 25.2George 21 October 23.7 23.9 24.1Kocsis 14 October 23.4 23.9 23.8Cave Spring 14 October 23.4 24.2 24.1

2011Buis 23 October 22.2 22.3 22.8Lowrey 23 October 24.2 24.7 25.3George 25 October 21.1 21.4 22.3Kocsis 20 October 23.4 23.5 23.1Cave Spring 21 October 24.7 25.3 25.3

2 |

Table S4. Aroma/ flavor sensory standards used in the descriptive analysis of Riesling and Cabernet franc wines, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 2010 and 2011.

RieslingFloral 1 drop floral perfume (Joy) by Jean Patou (2010)

Late harvest Gewürztraminer dominated by floral characteristics, vintage 1998, Konzelmann Estate Winery, Niagara Peninsula (2011)

Stone fruits (peach, apricot) 150 mL of apricot juice + 80 mL of peach juice

Mineral 8 g of ground slate

Apple/ pear 80 g sliced red apple + 70 g sliced pear

Citrus 6 g grapefruit skin + 100 drops of concentrated lime and lemon juice + 6 g of orange skin + 6 g of tangerine skin

Spice 0.05 g allspice

Tropical fruits (melon, pineapple, passion fruit, mango)

100 mL of pineapple juice + 200 mL mango juice

Vegetative 50 mL of green bean juice from canned green beans

Herbaceous Kim Crawford 2010 Sauvignon blanc dominated by herbaceous/green characteristics

Petrol Riesling wine (vintage 1999) dominated by petrol characteristics

Honey 20 g of mixed flowers honey

Cabernet francRed fruit (red cherry, raspberry, red current, strawberry, sour cherry)

5 mL each of fresh strawberry/raspberry/cherry (squeezed through cheesecloth)

Vegetal (celery, green bean) 2.5 g sliced green beans + 2.5g sliced celeryEarthy 2 g locally-sourced deciduous leaf litterSpice (allspice, cigar box, anise, black pepper)

0.5 g black pepper + 0.05 g allspice

Bell pepper 1 mL fresh bell pepper pureeDark fruits (black cherry, blueberry, plum, prune)

50 mL black cherry juice + 100 mL Ribena

Herbaceous (green, weedy, straw) 5 g of cat grass + 5 g of green teaCooked/ dried fruit (jam, pie filler, raisin)

100 g crushed raisins + 100 g jam + 50 mL prune juice

*All standards were up made in advance of training in 500 mL of unoaked, neutral Riesling & Cabernet franc base wine (CCOVI Pilot Winery) and stored in -4 °C controlled environment. All standards presented as 30-mL samples in ISO wine glasses. Standards represent the “high intensity” anchor term at the far right end of the respective line scales (15 cm).

3 |

Table S5. Impact of crop size on berry composition of Riesling from six vineyard sites, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 2010.

BuisTreatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) a FVT (mg

L-1) a

PVT(mg L-1) a

High 18.7 3.13 10.2 0.33 1.56Medium 19.1 3.16 10.3 0.52 1.55Low 19.4 3.17 9.8 0.35 1.49Significance ns ns ns ns ns

LambertTreatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg

L-1)PVT(mg L-1)

High 19.1 3.27c 9.5 0.46 2.16Medium 19.3 3.30b 9.3 0.60 2.19Low 19.7 3.31a 9.3 0.63 1.98Significance ns * ns ns ns

LowreyTreatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg

L-1)PVT(mg L-1)

High 20.1 3.25 7.1 0.28 2.85Medium 19.9 3.25 6.9 0.40 3.06Low 19.8 3.25 7.2 0.36 3.16Significance ns ns ns ns ns

GeorgeTreatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg

L-1)PVT(mg L-1)

High 18.9b 3.04 8.7 0.27 2.22Medium 19.3ab 3.05 8.4 0.44 2.45Low 19.8a 3.05 8.7 0.38 2.08Significance * ns ns ns ns

HughesTreatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg

L-1)PVT(mg L-1)

High 19.9 3.26 8.6 0.43 3.01Medium 19.9 3.27 8.3 0.41 3.40Low 19.9 3.29 8.2 0.38 3.28Significance ns ns ns ns ns

Cave SpringTreatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg

L-1)PVT(mg L-1)

High 19.8 3.24 9.4 0.20 1.68Medium 19.4 3.28 9.6 0.38 2.52Low 19.3 3.77 9.6 0.33 2.16Significance ns ns ns ns ns

Note: *, ns: Significant at p < 0.05 or not significant, respectively. Mean values are listed followed by different letters are significant at p < 0.05 Duncan’s multiple range test.a Abbreviations: TA: titratable acidity; FVT: free volatile terpenes; PVT: potentially-volatile terpenes.

4 |

Table S6. Impact of crop size on berry composition in five Riesling vineyards, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 2011.

Note: *, **, ns: Significant at p < 0.05, 0.01, or not significant, respectively. Mean values are listed followed by different letters are significant at p < 0.05 Duncan’s multiple range test. a Abbreviations: TA: titratable acidity; FVT: free volatile terpenes; PVT: potentially-volatile terpenes.

5 |

Buis

Treatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) a FVT (mg L-1) a PVT (mg L-1) a

High 17.7 2.83 11.1 0.25 1.82

Medium 18.1 2.85 10.8 0.24 1.67

Low 18.7 2.88 10.8 0.26 1.69

Significance ns ns ns ns ns

Lowrey

Treatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg L-1) PVT (mg L-1)

High 19.6b 3.20 8.2a 0.27 2.10

Medium 19.3b 3.22 8.1ab 0.25 2.08

Low 20.0a 3.24 7.9b 0.26 2.14

Significance * ns * ns ns

George

Treatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg L-1) PVT (mg L-1)

High 18.1 3.17 10.2 0.41 1.99b

Medium 18.5 3.19 9.8 0.48 2.06ab

Low 18.6 3.20 9.9 0.54 2.17a

Significance ns ns ns ns *

Hughes

Treatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg L-1) PVT (mg L-1)

High 19.0 3.22 10.9a 0.31 2.39

Medium 19.2 3.18 10.7a 0.34 2.45

Low 19.2 3.19 10.2b 0.35 2.58

Significance ns ns ** ns ns

Cave Spring

Treatment Brix pH TA (g L-1) FVT (mg L-1) PVT (mg L-1)

High 18.6 3.05 10.4 0.22 1.76

Medium 18.9 3.02 10.3 0.23 1.75

Low 19.2 3.05 10.2 0.22 1.72

Significance ns ns ns ns ns

Table S7. Impact of crop size on berry composition in five Cabernet franc vineyard sites, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 2010.

BuisTreatment Brix pH TA

(g L-1) aHue a Colour

Intensity aAnthocyanins (mg L-1)

Total phenols (mg L-1)

High 23.6c 3.53 6.0 4.22 16.5b 639b 1968Medium 24.3b 3.55 5.9 4.15 17.9ab 680ab 2001Low 25.0a 3.57 6.1 4.16 19.2a 712a 2109Significance **** ns ns ns ** ** ns

LowreyTreatment Brix pH TA

(g L-1)Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins (mg L-1)

Total phenols (mg L-1)

High 25.2a 3.48b 5.8a 3.91 22.9b 832b 2351bMedium 25.4b 3.47b 5.7ab 4.02 24.5ab 862ab 2544bLow 26.3a 3.55a 5.6b 3.94 24.9a 886a 3145aSignificance **** *** ** ns * * **

GeorgeTreatment Brix pH TA

(g L-1)Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins (mg L-1)

Total phenols (mg L-1)

High 24.2 3.44 6.7 4.02 19.5 737 2238Medium 24.5 3.42 6.7 3.97 20.3 768 2179Low 24.7 3.43 6.6 3.96 21.1 791 2359Significance ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

KocsisTreatment Brix pH TA

(g L-1)Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins (mg L-1)

Total phenols (mg L-1)

High 24.9 3.54 6.3 4.62 21.2 750 2338bMedium 25.2 3.53 6.1 4.54 22.4 749 2578bLow 25.2 3.56 6.1 4.62 22.7 741 2955aSignificance ns ns ns ns ns ns ***

Cave SpringTreatment Brix pH TA

(g L-1)Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins (mg L-1)

Total phenols (mg L-1)

High 24.5 3.40 6.6 4.23a 17.1b 678b 2438Medium 24.6 3.42 6.5 4.14ab 18.4ab 715ab 2458Low 24.7 3.41 6.9 4.10b 19.4a 742a 2554Significance ns ns ns ** **** *** nsNote: *, **, ***, ****, ns: Significant at p< 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, or not significant, respectively. Mean values are listed followed by different letters are significant at p < 0.05 Duncan’s multiple range test. a TA= Titratable acidity; Hue= A420/A520; Colour Intensity = A420+A520

6 |

Table S7. Impact of crop size on berry composition of Cabernet franc from five vineyard sites, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, 2011

Buis

Treatment Brix pH TA(g L-1) a Hue a Colour

Intensity aAnthocyanins(mg L-1)

Totalphenols(mg L-1)

High 22.2b 3.55 6.1b 10.5 12.2b 506b 1555bMedium 22.3ab 3.54 6.2b 10.4 13.3ab 560ab 1675abLow 22.8a 3.52 6.5a 10.6 14.6a 615a 1847aSignificance * ns * ns * * *

Lowrey

Treatment Brix pH TA(g L-1) Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins(mg L-1)

Totalphenols(mg L-1)

High 24.2b 3.47 5.7 9.35 15.9b 719 2133bMedium 24.7ab 3.47 5.7 9.39 18.3ab 795 2207bLow 25.3a 3.47 5.7 9.28 18.5a 798 2520aSignificance * ns ns ns * ns **

George

Treatment Brix pH TA(g L-1) Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins(mg L-1)

Totalphenols(mg L-1)

High 21.1b 3.37 7.4 10.1 12.2 534 2046bMedium 21.4b 3.36 7.3 10.0 12.2 546 2137abLow 22.3a 3.39 7.1 9.81 14.4 563 2336aSignificance * ns ns ns ns ns *

Kocsis

Treatment Brix pH TA(g L-1) Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins(mg L-1)

Totalphenols(mg L-1)

High 23.4 3.60 6.6 10.9 13.9 554 2444Medium 23.5 3.61 6.3 10.9 13.8 557 2413Low 23.1 3.58 6.4 10.8 13.6 548 2503Significance ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Cave Spring

Treatment Brix pH TA(g L-1) Hue Colour

IntensityAnthocyanins(mg L-1)

Totalphenols(mg L-1)

High 24.7 3.40 6.7b 9.59b 16.0 713 2517Medium 25.3 3.41 6.9ab 9.66ab 16.2 707 2493Low 25.3 3.44 7.0a 9.82a 16.3 705 2510Significance ns ns * * ns ns ns

Note: *, **, ns: Significant at p < 0.05, 0.01, or not significant, respectively. Mean values are listed followed by different letters are significant at p < 0.05 Duncan’s multiple range test.a TA= Titratable acidity; Hue= A420/A520; Colour Intensity = A420+A520.

7 |

Table S8. Kruskal stress values derived from sensory sorting of 2010 and 2011 Ontario Riesling and Cabernet franc wines.

Riesling2010

Site Kruskal stress (2D) Kruskal stress (3D)All sites 0.26 0.16Buis 0.16 0.07Lambert 0.12 NALowrey 0.19 0.07George 0.19 0.1Hughes 0.13 NACave Spring 0.12 NA

2011Site Kruskal stress (2D) Kruskal stress (3D)All sites 0.26 0.13Buis 0.19 0.08Lambert ---- NALowrey 0.19 0.08George 0.19 0.06Hughes 0.19 0.08Cave Spring 0.21 0.12

Cabernet franc2010

Site Kruskal stress (2D) Kruskal stress (3D)All sites 0.22 0.13Buis 0.16 0.03Lowrey 0.15 0.16George 0.18 0.09Hughes 0.09 NACave Spring 0.15 NA

2011Site Kruskal stress (2D) Kruskal stress (3D)All sites 0.25 0.15Buis 0.08 NALowrey 0.18 0.06George 0.12 NAHughes 0.09 NACave Spring 0.15 0.06

8 |

List of Supplemental Figures

Fig. S1: Map of the sub-appellations of the Niagara Peninsula (Courtesy of VQA Ontario). Red circles

represent Cabernet franc research blocks, green circles represent Riesling research blocks, and “+”

represents the Vineland Research weather station. From left to right, Cabernet franc blocks are Cave

Spring, Kocsis, George, Buis, Lambert, Lowrey; from left to right, Riesling blocks are Cave Spring,

Hughes, George, Lambert, Buis, and Lowrey. Source: VQA Ontario (www.vqaontario.ca).

Fig. S2: Multi-dimensional scaling of sorted wines from Riesling sites in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario,

A: 2010; B: 2011. Abbreviations: H, M, L = high yield, medium yield, low yield. Kruskal's stress for site

separation: 0.26 (2010), 0.26 (2011).

Fig S3: Multi-dimensional scaling of sorted wines from five Cabernet franc sites in the Niagara

Peninsula, Ontario, A: 2010; B: 2011. Abbreviations: H, M, L = high yield; medium yield, low yield,

respectively. Kruskal's stress for site separation: 0.22 (2010), 0.25 (2011).

Fig. S4: Spatial distribution of yield for six Riesling vineyard sites Niagara Peninsula, Ontario 2010: A)

Buis, B) Lambert, C) Lowrey, D) George, E) Hughes, F) Cave Spring.

Fig. S5: Spatial distribution of yield for five Riesling vineyard sites, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario 2011: A)

Buis, B) Lowrey, C) George, D) Hughes, E) Cave Spring.

Fig. S6: Spatial distribution of yield for five Cabernet franc vineyard sites Niagara Peninsula, Ontario

2010: A) Buis, B) Lowrey, C) George, D) Kocsis, E) Cave Spring.

Fig. S7: Spatial distribution of yield for five Cabernet franc vineyard sites Niagara Peninsula, Ontario

2011: A) Buis, B) Lowrey, C) George, D) Kocsis, E) Cave Spring.

9 |

Fig. S1: Map of the sub-appellations of the Niagara Peninsula (Courtesy of VQA Ontario). Red circles represent Cabernet franc research blocks, green circles represent Riesling research blocks, and “+” represents the Vineland Research weather station. From left to right, Cabernet franc blocks are Cave Spring, Kocsis, George, Buis, Lambert, Lowrey; from left to right, Riesling blocks are Cave Spring, Hughes, George, Lambert, Buis, and Lowrey. Source: VQA Ontario (www.vqaontario.ca).

10 |

2 km

Buis M1

Buis M2

Lowrey M1

Lowrey M2

Hughes M1

Hughes M2

George M1

George M2

Cave M1

Cave M2

-10

-5

0

5

10

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Dim1

Dim

2

15

-15

A-2010

B-2011Figure S2. Multi-dimensional scaling of sorted wines from Riesling sites in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, A: 2010; B: 2011. Abbreviations: H, M, L = high yield, medium yield, low yield. Kruskal's stress for site separation: 0.26 (2010), 0.26 (2011).

11 |

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Lambert L3

Cave Spring L3

Hughes H3

Lambert H2

Buis L3

Lowrey L1

George H1

Hughes L3

Lowrey H1

George L1

Buis H2 Cave Spring H1

Dim1

Dim

2

Buis M1

Buis M2Buis M3

Lowrey M1

Lowrey M2

Lowrey M3

George M1

George M2

George M3Kocsis M1

Kocsis M2

Kocsis M3

Cave M1

Cave M2

Cave M3

-10

-5

0

5

10

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

Dim1

Dim

2

15

-15

A-2010

B-2011Figure S3. Multi-dimensional scaling of sorted wines from five Cabernet franc sites in the Niagara Peninsula, Ontario, A: 2010; B: 2011. Abbreviations: H, M, L = high yield; medium yield, low yield, respectively. Kruskal's stress for site separation: 0.22 (2010), 0.25 (2011).

12 |

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

Cave Spring L2

Lowrey L2

Buis H2Buis L1

Cave Spring H1George L1

George H1

Lowrey H3

Kocsis L1

Kocsis H2

Dim1

Dim

2

A B C

D E FFig. S4: Spatial distribution of yield for six Riesling vineyard sites Niagara Peninsula, Ontario 2010: A) Buis, B) Lambert, C) Lowrey, D) George, E) Hughes, F) Cave Spring.

13 |

A B C

D EFig. S5: Spatial distribution of yield for five Riesling vineyard sites, Niagara Peninsula, Ontario 2011: A) Buis, B) Lowrey, C) George, D) Hughes, E) Cave Spring.

14 |

A B C

D EFig. S6: Spatial distribution of yield for five Cabernet franc vineyard sites Niagara Peninsula, Ontario 2010: A) Buis, B) Lowrey, C) George, D) Kocsis, E) Cave Spring.

15 |

A B C

D EFig. S7: Spatial distribution of yield for five Cabernet franc vineyard sites Niagara Peninsula, Ontario 2011: A) Buis, B) Lowrey, C) George, D) Kocsis, E) Cave Spring.

16 |