## 3 Results
### Influence of Cluster Thinning and Type of Alcoholic Fermentation on Wine Parameters
#### 3.4.3 Comparison of Locations M and B  
The influence of the location on the significant differences in the content of volatiles and some other compounds in the Merlot wine of inoculated alcoholic fermentations in two consecutive years and at two crop loads is shown in Table 3. The differences are more reproducible within the same year at both crop loads than within the same crop load at two consecutive vintages. The wines from both locations in 2020 differed significantly in their content of ethanol, IBMP, 3 MH, ethyl decanoate, sum acetates, 2-methyl-1-butanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, 2-phenylethanol, and sum of alcohols (higher content at location B), and 1-hexanol and ethyl acetate (higher content at location M) at both crop loads (C and CT). In the same comparison in 2021, there were fewer significant differences, namely that the wines from both locations, regardless of the crop load, differed in their content of VA, TP, 3 MH, ethyl palmitate, \(\gamma\)-butylrolactone, ethyl acetate (higher content at location B), and hexyl acetate (higher content at location M). When comparing the same crop load in two consecutive vintages, it was found that the wines from both locations differed significantly in the ethanol and 3 MH content at a higher crop load (C), regardless of the vintage (higher content in location B). At a lower crop load (CT), the wines from both locations differed significantly in TP, 3 MH, ethyl octanoate, sum of acetates and alcohols,and 3-methyl-1-butanol (higher content at location B), and 1-hexanol (higher content at location M), irrespective of the vintage (Table 3). Therefore, when comparing the two locations, greater differences were found in the concentrations of volatiles and some other compounds in the wines with a lower crop load (CT). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Crop Load** & **Significant Differences Between Locations B and M** & \\ \hline
**Control (C)** & _Parameters with significantly higher values/concentrations at p \(\leq\) 0.05_1  & _Parameters with significantly lower values/concentrations at p \(\leq\) 0.05_  \\ \hline (1) Location B vs. Location M (2020) & **Ethanol**, 2, 4 TAc, **IBMP**, **3 MH**, **Ethyl decanoate, **SUM** & \\  & **acetates**, Benzyl alcohol, 2-Methyl-1-propanol, 2-Methyl-1-butanol, 3-Methyl-1-butanol, & pH, Ethyl dodecanoate, **1-Hexanol**, **Ethyl acetate** \\  & **2-Phenylethanol**, **SUM alcohols** & \\ \hline (2) Location B vs. Location M (2021) & **Ethanol**, _VS_, 3 pH, _TP_, _3 MH_, Ethyl dodecanoate, _Ethyl palmitate_, 1-Butanol, \(\gamma\)-**Butylolactone**, _Ethyl acetate_ & _Hexyl acetate_, Isoamyl acetate, (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{p{113.8 pt}}{**Significant Differences Between Locations B and M**} & \\ \hline
**Cluster thinning (CT)** & _Parameters with significantly higher values/concentrations at p \(\leq\) 0.05_ & _Parameters with significantly lower values/concentrations at p \(\leq\) 0.05_ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Effects of the location (M, B) at two crop loads (C—control, CT—cluster thinning) on the Merlot wine volatiles and other compounds in two consecutive vintages (2020, 2021). Figure 2: Principal component analyses (PCAs) conducted on the quantified wine parameters for the samples from location B, two vintages (2020, 2021), and for the first two principal components: (**a**) score plot for the first two principal components; ellipses represent 95% confidence intervals for sample groups; B––control crop load, B-CT—cluster thinning, both with inoculated alcoholic fermentation; B–C\(\_\)sAF—control crop load and spontaneous alcoholic fermentation AF (only vintage 2021); and (**b**) loadings for the first two principal components; size of the bubbles indicates the importance to the separation of samples for individual variable.