## 3 Results and Discussion
### Case Study with the Presented Model  
To present the practical application of the obtained model, a case study was performed. The total number of nine scenarios was entered into the model, representing different combinations of the temperature and rainfall values. Each parameter was examined on three different levels. The upper temperature value was selected equal to the highest annual mean registered within the experimental data used in this study (15.88 \({}^{\circ}\)C). The middle value was the mean of all the considered years (14.53 \({}^{\circ}\)C), and the lower limit was 13.56 \({}^{\circ}\)C, which was equal to the minimum within all annual means. Analogical assigning was made for rainfall of 51.05 mm, 41.74 mm, and 31.88 mm, respectively. The standard deviation for both parameters was selected to represent relatively stable conditions; thus, it was calculated as the mean value within all years tested (4.27 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 17.64 mm) and remained the same for all scenarios tested. Although the model predicted all four mentioned parameters, the objective for the case study was the total yield of berry from the wine vine.  
\[\textit{Yield}=\textit{NC}\times\textit{NB}\times\textit{BW} \tag{7}\]  
For moderate annual temperatures, the benefits of alternate rootstocks increased (Table 7). For high rainfall values, this was not so clear, as the own root indicated a slightly higher yield. However, for the middle and lower values of this parameter, the 125 AA rootstock provided significantly better results. With a deeper decline of temperatures, this tendency strengthens. Again, the 125 AA rootstock is a good solution in 2 of 3 cases. However, the most surprising is Case 8, which was determined as the most challenging for vine harvesting. Low annual temperatures and rainfall lead to a very unfavorable situation of very low yield. The 161-49C rootstock indicated the highest yield, but it was still much lower than in other conditions. Even more interestingly, this rootstock was definitely the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Rootstock Type/Variable** & & & **NC** & **NB** & **BW** & **EB** & **Total** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**101-14 Mgt**} & Change & [\%] & 7.22 & 26.83 & 1.43 & 2.16 & 11.32 \\  & Final error & [\%] & 1.82 & 2.89 & 4.21 & 1.17 & 10.09 \\  & Change & [\%] & 1.04 & 45.77 & 0.65 & 2.72 & 17.74 \\  & Final error & [\%] & 1.79 & 3.36 & 7.28 & 1.17 & 13.60 \\
**161-49C** & Change & [\%] & 0.95 & 1.61 & 3.28 & 3.36 & 2.57 \\  & Final error & [\%] & 1.14 & 1.95 & 3.83 & 1.14 & 8.06 \\
**5 BB** & Change & [\%] & \(-\)0.77 & 2.75 & \(-\)0.49 & \(-\)2.10 & 0.70 \\  & Final error & [\%] & 1.11 & 4.89 & 4.16 & 1.36 & 11.53 \\
**SO4** & Change & [\%] & 3.85 & 79.54 & 2.59 & 17.54 & 35.46 \\  & Final error & [\%] & 0.93 & 0.86 & 3.52 & 1.63 & 6.95 \\
**125 AA** & Change & [\%] & 1.51 & 6.02 & 0.53 & 0.69 & 4.10 \\  & Final error & [\%] & 0.90 & 8.17 & 2.69 & 1.34 & 13.11 \\  & Change & [\%] & 2.25 & 83.46 & 1.09 & 1.18 & 36.46 \\
**Own root** & Final error & [\%] & 1.35 & 0.93 & 5.10 & 0.98 & 8.36 \\  & Change & [\%] & 2.29 & 35.14 & 1.30 & 3.65 & 15.48 \\  & Final error & [\%] & 1.29 & 3.29 & 4.40 & 1.26 & 10.24 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Results of model benchmark for all variables and rootstocks.  
weakest in the six scenarios tested. This leads to the conclusion that the only situation when this rootstock should be connected with vine variety considered in this study is when expected conditions will be very challenging. In any other cases, it is recommended to use some of the other solutions, such as 125 AA or own rootstock.