## 3 Results and Discussion
### Impact of Fermentation Parameters on Population Dynamics
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & & \(Sc/Lt\) Ratio & Nitrogen & Oxygenation & Temperature & Residuals \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mu_{\rm max\,Sc}\)} & Stand. effect & \(-1.164\) & \(-1.168\) & \(-0.590\) & 4.094 & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.329 & 0.327 & 0.596 & 0.026 & \\  & Var. contrib. & 5.93\% & 5.97\% & 1.53\% & 73.40\% & 13.10\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mu_{\rm max\,Lt}\)} & Stand. effect & \(-3.010\) & 0.767 & 1.968 & 0.657 & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.057 & 0.499 & 0.144 & 0.558 & \\  & Var. contrib. & 53.40\% & 3.47\% & 22.80\% & 2.54\% & 17.70\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\mu_{\rm max\,Lt}/\mu_{\rm max\,Sc}\)} & Stand. effect & \(-0.590\) & 1.510 & 1.259 & \(-3.594\) & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.597 & 0.228 & 0.297 & 0.037 & \\  & Var. contrib. & 1.73\% & 11.30\% & 7.88\% & 64.20\% & 14.90\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\rm N_{\rm max\,Sc}\)} & Stand. effect & 1.240 & 0.517 & \(-4.443\) & 4.546 & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.303 & 0.641 & 0.021 & 0.020 & \\  & Var. contrib. & 3.40\% & 0.59\% & 43.70\% & 45.70\% & 6.64\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\rm N_{\rm max\,Lt}\)} & Stand. effect & \(-2.104\) & 3.131 & \(-0.462\) & \(-7.750\) & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.126 & 0.052 & 0.676 & 0.004 & \\  & Var. contrib. & 5.71\% & 12.60\% & 0.28\% & 77.50\% & 3.87\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\(\rm AUC_{Lt}/AUC_{Sc}\)} & Stand. effect & \(-6.999\) & 0.888 & 6.822 & \(-8.267\) & \\  & \(p\)-value & 0.006 & 0.440 & 0.006 & 0.001 & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Var. contrib. & 29.20\% & 0.47\% & 27.89\% & 40.80\% & 1.79\% \\ \hline \end{tabular} Stand. effect = standardized effect: Var. contrib. = contribution to variance; \(\rm N_{\rm max}\) = maximal population; \(\mu_{\rm max}\) = maximal growth rate; AUC = area under growth curve. Data are identified as statistically almost significant (\(0.05<p\)-value \(<0.1\), light grey background), significant (\(p\)-value \(<0.05\), grey background), or very significant (\(p\)-value \(<0.01\), dark grey background).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Impact of fermentation parameters on population dynamics (\(\mu_{\rm max}\), \(\rm N_{\rm max}\), AUC). still not well understood) in \(S\). _cerevisiae_: this can lead to a decrease in its maximal growth rate and reduce its competitiveness against other yeasts [36; 45]. These different factors can provide an explanation for the significant impact of temperature on growth rates, both absolute (\(\mu_{\rm max\,Sc}\) and \(\mu_{\rm max\,Lt}\)) and relative (\(\mu_{\rm max\,Lt}/\mu_{\rm max\,Sc}\)). Otherwise, in the conditions tested, the maximal population of both yeasts was affected differently by the factors studied. For \(Sc\), the N\({}_{\rm max}\) was significatively influenced by both temperature (positive effect, stand. effect 4.546, contrib. var. 45.7%) and oxygenation (negative effect, stand. effect \(-\)4.443, contrib. var. 43.7%). On the contrary, the maximal population of \(Lt\) was significantly impacted by temperature (which explained 77.5% of the variance, with a standard effect of \(-\)7.750) and with low significance by nitrogen (\(p\)-value 0.052, stand. effect 3.131). Thus, an increase in temperature from 18 \({}^{\circ}\)C to 28 \({}^{\circ}\)C led to a higher \(Sc\) and a lower \(Lt\) population. [PERSON] et al. (2013) [16] also described a lower maximal population of \(Sc\) when the temperature was decreased, but they did not observe a higher \(Lt\) population (they noticed the same population with a higher persistence during fermentation). In addition to temperature, in other studies [17; 20] oxygenation favored the development of \(Lt\) and led to a higher maximal population, which was not observed as significant here. [PERSON] et al. (2021) [46] also showed that the survival of \(Lt\) in ethanol-stress conditions was enhanced in the presence of oxygen. The fact that such an impact was not observed here could be explained by differences in the oxygenation levels studied.