## 3 Results and Discussion
### Wine Sensory Characteristics  
Corresponding to the overall effect of the investigated treatments on wine composition, the sensory characteristics of wines were more strikingly affected through the application of cluster thinning than severe shoot trimming. In both years of study, CT significantly increased the perception of aroma intensity, aroma complexity, dark berry aroma, wine body, velvety astringency, persistency, taste balance and overall wine quality, whereas it decreased the perception of acidity compared to FC (Table 4). Furthermore, in the second year of the study the same treatment significantly increased the perception of color intensity and tannin perception intensity, whereas it decreased the perception of vegetal aroma. On the other hand, the application of severe shoot trimming had a milder effect on wine sensory characteristics than cluster thinning. This practice significantly increased the perception of vegetal aroma, acidity and bitterness compared to HC in one year of study and decreased the perception of wine body, persistency and taste balance, also in one year of study. Although it could be expected that the application of cluster thinning would result in wines that are out of balance in term of the alcoholic notes or the hotness sensation due to their higher alcohol content [20,21], under the conditions of our study the sensory \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Season 2017**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Season 2018**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Cluster Thinning**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Shoot Trimming**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Int. b**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Cluster Thinning**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Shoot Trimming**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Int.**} \\ \cline{2-13}  & **FC** & **CT** & **Sign. a** & **HC** & **SST** & **Sign.** & **Sign.** & **FC** & **CT** & **Sign.** & **HC** & **SST** & **Sign.** & **Sign.** \\ \hline Color intensity & 7.5 & 8.2 & ns & 7.9 & 7.9 & ns & ns & 6.8 & 8.2 & * & 7.7 & 7.3 & ns & ns \\ Aroma intensity & 7.1 & 7.8 & * & 7.7 & 7.2 & ns & ns & 6.2 & 7.0 & * & 6.9 & 6.4 & ns & * \\ Aroma complexity & 6.5 & 7.3 & * & 7.2 & 6.6 & ns & ns & 5.8 & 6.9 & * & 6.7 & 6.0 & ns & * \\ Vegetal aroma & 2.7 & 2.3 & ns & 2.3 & 2.7 & ns & ns & 3.2 & 2.5 & ** & 2.5 & 3.2 & ** & * \\ Red berry aroma & 4.3 & 4.7 & ns & 4.8 & 4.1 & ns & ns & 4.5 & 4.4 & ns & 4.6 & 4.2 & ns & ns \\ Dark berry aroma & 5.8 & 7.2 & * & 6.6 & 6.4 & ns & ns & 4.5 & 6.0 & * & 5.7 & 4.8 & ns & * \\ Aidity & 6.5 & 5.9 & * & 5.9 & 6.5 & * & ns & 7.0 & 6.5 & * & 6.6 & 6.8 & ns & ns \\ Body & 6.6 & 7.4 & * & 7.2 & 6.8 & ns & ns & 6.4 & 7.4 & ** & 7.2 & 6.5 & * & * \\ Bitterness & 4.2 & 4.1 & ns & 3.9 & 4.3 & ns & ns & 5.1 & 4.7 & ns & 4.9 & 4.8 & ns & ns \\ Coarse stringency & 5.9 & 5.7 & ns & 5.4 & 6.3 & * & ns & 6.4 & 6.3 & ns & 6.4 & 6.3 & ns & ns \\ Velvety astringency & 6.5 & 7.6 & * & 7.4 & 6.8 & ns & ns & 5.9 & 7.1 & * & 6.9 & 6.1 & ns & * \\ Tannin perception & & 6.6 & 7.1 & ns & 6.8 & 6.9 & ns & ns & 6.7 & 7.5 & * & 7.4 & 6.9 & ns & ns \\ intensity & 6.6 & 7.5 & * & 7.5 & 6.6 & * & ns & 6.0 & 7.2 & * & 6.7 & 6.4 & ns & * \\ Persistency & 7.4 & 8.0 & * & 8.1 & 7.3 & * & ns & 6.7 & 7.7 & * & 7.5 & 7.0 & ns & ns \\ Overall wine quality & 7.5 & 8.1 & * & 8.0 & 7.6 & ns & ns & 6.8 & 7.8 & * & 7.6 & 7.0 & ns & ns \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Data were analyzed via two-way ANOVA in randomized blocks design (ns, not significant; *, \(p\leq 0.05\); **, \(p\leq 0.01\)). b Interaction between cluster thinning and shoot trimming.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Sensory characteristics of wines obtained from grapes of Merlot vines subjected to cluster thinning (FC—full crop; and CT—cluster thinning) and shoot trimming (HC—high canopy; and SST—severe shoot trimming).