## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Effect of the Foliar MeJ and ACP-MeJ Treatments on the Must General Parameters  
Table 1 shows the enological parameters in the grapes from control and vines treated with methyl jasmonate (MeJ) and with nanoparticles doped with MeJ (ACP-MeJ), in 2019 and 2020 seasons. In 2019, MeJ treatment significantly decreased \({}^{\circ}\)Brix, probable grade, glucose + fructose (Glu + Fru), glucose (Glu), and fructose (Fru) content with respect to control grapes, while total acidity, total phenols, amino nitrogen, and yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) increased when vines were foliarly treated with MeJ. However, ACP-MeJ treatment showed no significant differences with respect to the control in any of the parameters studied except for total phenols, which concentration increased (Table 1). In 2020 season, MeJ and ACP-MeJ foliar application did not affect must enological parameters. This result are similar to those reported by [PERSON] et al., 2018 [34] which found only small or no differences in these parameters after MeJ application. Although overall precipitation and average temperatures were similar in 2019 and 2020, August rainfall was 11.5 L/m\({}^{2}\) in 2019 and 32.9 L/m\({}^{2}\) in 2020. Since this month is where the berry ripening process is completed, this may be the reason why the weight of 100 berries is higher in 2020 than in 2019 (Table 1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2019**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**2020**} \\ \hline
**Weight of 100 berries (g)** & 113.68 \(\pm\) 11.07 a & 141.81 \(\pm\) 27.18 a & 116.94 \(\pm\) 4.62.4a & 199.57 \(\pm\) 7.27 a & 207.67 \(\pm\) 0.39 a & 194.90 \(\pm\) 20.65 a \\ \({}^{\circ}\)Bix & 24.70 \(\pm\) 0.72 b & 22.23 \(\pm\) 1.17 a & 23.37 \(\pm\) 0.49 ab & 22.30 \(\pm\) 0.92 a & 22.17 \(\pm\) 2.31 a & 22.37 \(\pm\) 0.38 a \\ Probable alcohol (\% v/v) & 146.30 \(\pm\) 0.49 b & 12.92 \(\pm\) 0.80 a & 13.17 \(\pm\) 0.35 ab & 12.97 \(\pm\) 0.63 a & 12.89 \(\pm\) 1.58 a & 13.01 \(\pm\) 0.26 a \\ pH & 3.83 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 3.78 \(\pm\) 0.10 a & 3.82 \(\pm\) 0.09 a & 3.76 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 3.70 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 3.73 \(\pm\) 0.06 a \\ Total acidity (g/l) \({}^{*}\) & 4.61 \(\pm\) 0.11 a & 5.20 \(\pm\) 0.36 b & 5.13 \(\pm\) 0.26 ab & 4.12 \(\pm\) 0.33 a & 4.54 \(\pm\) 10.08 a & 4.03 \(\pm\) 0.21 a \\ Glu + Fe (g/l) & 249.68 \(\pm\) 9.97 b & 255.50 \(\pm\) 12.29 a & 234.10 \(\pm\) 10.82 b & 216.42 \(\pm\) 10.70 a & 216.82 \(\pm\) 2.56 a & 223.84 \(\pm\) 2.98 a \\ Glu (g/l) & 120.18 \(\pm\) 5.13 b & 102.88 \(\pm\) 6.89 a & 110.89 \(\pm\) 4.94 b & 107.31 \(\pm\) 4.54 a & 106.08 \(\pm\) 12.84 a & 1086.21 \(\pm\) 2.98 a \\ \({}^{\circ}\)Fru g/l) & 129.68 \(\pm\) 4.84 b & 112.62 \(\pm\) 5.43 a & 120.51 \(\pm\) 6.26 b & 109.11 \(\pm\) 65.3 a & 112.54 \(\pm\) 13.76 a & 114.27 \(\pm\) 0.98 a \\ Malic acid (g/l) & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.24 a & 2.54 \(\pm\) 0.32 a & 2.51 \(\pm\) 0.56 a & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 15.45 \(\pm\) 0.22 a & 1.99 \(\pm\) 0.18 a \\ Total phenols (mg/l) & 1185.33 \(\pm\) 72.31 a & 1306.57 \(\pm\) 61.35 b & 1351.40 \(\pm\) 27.32 b & 541.60 \(\pm\) 64.02 a & 603.07 \(\pm\) 73.82 a & 562.70 \(\pm\) 66.02 a \\ Ammonium nitrogen (mg N/l) & 780.00 \(\pm\) 82.2a & 106.34 \(\pm\) 15.68 a & 104.04 \(\pm\) 20.4 a & 121.16 \(\pm\) 35.2a & 101.66 \(\pm\) 19.58 a & 114.65 \(\pm\) 62.4 a \\ Amino nitrogen (mg N/l) & 1185.15 \(\pm\) 14.33 a & 2021.11 \(\pm\) 50.9 b & 175.71 \(\pm\) 24.66 b & 125.53 \(\pm\) 14.33 a & 139.63 \(\pm\) 35.64 a & 1352.42 \(\pm\) 5.50 a \\ YAN (mg N/l) & 196.51 \(\pm\) 21.18 a & 308.45 \(\pm\) 64.76 b & 277.11 \(\pm\) 44.31 ab & 273.69 \(\pm\) 17.69 a & 241.29 \(\pm\) 55.05 a & 266.90 \(\pm\) 11.62 a \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* As g/l.f. of ultrafast acid. YAN’s yeast small-sample nitrogen. All parameters are listed with their standard deviation (\(n-3\)). For each season and parameter, different letters indicate significant differences between the samples (p \(\leq\) 0.05).  
\end{table}