## 3 Results and Discussion
### Changes in Leaf Polyphenolic Composition
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compounds**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Leaf Polythemolic Profile [mg g\({}^{-1}\)] Dry Weight**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Goher White**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Goher Altering**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Goher Red**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Sun** & **Shade** & **Sun** & **Shade** & **Sun** & **Shade** \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{Phenolic acid} \\ _trans_-cafaric acid & \(4.00\pm 0.075\) & *3.73 \(\pm\) 0.046 & 8.46 \(\pm\) 0.314 & *6.20 \(\pm\) 0.245 & 3.66 \(\pm\) 0.071 & *1.94 \(\pm\) 0.075 \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{**Flavonol-glycos**} \\ \hline Quercetin-glucuronide & \(8.87\pm 0.377\) & \(8.02\pm 0.394\) & 18.52 \(\pm\) 0.386 & *14.42 \(\pm\) 0.173 & 8.42 \(\pm\) 0.177 & *6.19 \(\pm\) 0.102 \\ Quercetin-glucoseide & \(2.77\pm 0.168\) & *1.20 \(\pm\) 0.054 & 7.35 \(\pm\) 0.036 & *3.30 \(\pm\) 0.059 & 2.86 \(\pm\) 0.091 & *0.73 \(\pm\) 0.030 \\ Quercetin-routinoside & \(0.64\pm 0.044\) & *0.43 \(\pm\) 0.031 & 1.65 \(\pm\) 0.018 & *1.06 \(\pm\) 0.033 & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.020 & *0.13 \(\pm\) 0.004 \\ Quercetin-galactoside & \(0.59\pm 0.042\) & *0.26 \(\pm\) 0.017 & 1.81 \(\pm\) 0.036 & *0.73 \(\pm\) 0.020 & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.010 & *0.13 \(\pm\) 0.005 \\ Kaempfer-glucuronide & \(0.56\pm 0.025\) & \(0.56\pm 0.027\) & 1.69 \(\pm\) 0.048 & *1.31 \(\pm\) 0.024 & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.006 & *0.24 \(\pm\) 0.007 \\ Kaempfer-glucoseide & \(0.53\pm 0.031\) & *0.21 \(\pm\) 0.011 & 1.76 \(\pm\) 0.027 & *0.54 \(\pm\) 0.005 & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.013 & *0.11 \(\pm\) 0.004 \\ Kaempfer-routinoside & \(0.18\pm 0.008\) & \(0.17\pm 0.010\) & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.010 & *0.42 \(\pm\) 0.011 & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.006 & *0.07 \(\pm\) 0.003 \\ Total amount & \(18.14\pm 0.771\) & \(14.58\pm 0.590\) & \(41.97\pm 0.876\) & \(27.98\pm 0.571\) & \(17.02\pm 0.393\) & \(9.54\pm 0.229\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* indicates significant (df = 4, \(p<0.05\)) differences between sun and half shade leaves of the same variety.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Polyphenolic composition of sun and half shade leaves of Goher varieties. Values are given as the average of three replicates \(\pm\) SD. T-values from a paired Student’s-\(t\)-tests are in Table A2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sun Leaves**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{G. White} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{G. Altering} \\ \hline G. Altering & **39.13** & & \\ G. Red & 2.52 & **58.32** \\ \hline
**Shade Leaves** & G. White & G. Altering \\ \hline G. Altering & **-34.86** & & \\ G. Red & **13.98** & **85.45** \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Sun Leaves**} \\ \cline{2-3}  & G. White & G. Altering & G. Red \\ \hline G. White & **6.41** & **50.62** & **7.01** \\ G. Altering & **-20.70** & **30.56** & **–56.21** \\ G. Red & **18.86** & **74.09** & **52.83** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of total polyphenolic contents in Goher varieties. Data are actual \(t\)-values, corresponding to the total amount data in Table 1, for analysis between grapevine varieties within sun exposure. Significant differences at \(p<0.05\) indicated in bold. roles of main leaf polyphenols of different plant species in natural sunlight acclimation have been studied under Mediterranean climate, which revealed significant differences in acclimation strategies [12,13]. In our case, the varieties were grown under natural sunlight conditions characteristic to mainland temperate climate summers. Despite of the highly similar viticultural and environmental factors and the close genetic background of studied varieties, they showed differences not only in quantity of detected polyphenols, but also in their response to full sunlight.