## 3 Results
### Leaf Area to Fruit Weight-Ratio  
A narrower leaf area to fruit weight-ratio (LFR) was observed in 2017 and 2019 for SMPH compared to VSP (Figure S2). Although, statistically significant differences were not detected between the two training systems. All thinning treatments led to a wider LFR compared to SMPH with exception of SMPH GA in 2017 (Figure S2). These observations were significant in 2018 for bunch thinning treatment (\(p=0.002\)). Across three vintages, both mechanical thinning strategies showed a significant wider LFR referred to SMPH. Moreover, a significant higher LFR was achieved with SMPH BT, compared to VSP (Table 2). Biotechnological thinning with Gibberell acid did not significantly affect LFR.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Treatment**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(p\)**-Values**} \\ \hline
**Parameter** & **VSP** & **SMPH** & **SMPH GA** & **SMPH BT** & **SMPH ST** & **Vintage** & **Treatment** & **Vintage** * \\ \hline
**Nodes per meter** & 17.65 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 2.57\) & 360.61 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 75.76\) & 399.89 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 102.52\) & 374.83 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 87.15\) & 350.72 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 89.93\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p=0.007\) \\ \hline
**Shoots per meter** & 17.98 \(\mathbf{e}\pm 2.76\) & 181.17 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 13.81\) & 177.11 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 23.70\) & 182.50 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 31.09\) & 123.56 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 14.49\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) \\ \hline
**Shoot length [cm]** & 137.90 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 7.05\) & 32.81 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 9.93\) & 36.26 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 7.49\) & 38.02 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 10.27\) & 44.31 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 7.02\) & \(p=0.335\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p=0.796\) \\ \hline
**Infloresences per shoot [cm]** & 1.89 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 0.53\) & 0.59 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 0.12\) & 0.52 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 0.13\) & 0.65 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 0.19\) & 0.75 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 0.18\) & \(p=0.351\) & \(p=0.002\) & \(p=0.405\) \\ \hline
**Infloresences per meter** & 32.78 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 3.61\) & 109.17 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 25.50\) & 98.94 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 30.68\) & 120.06 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 25.94\) & 94.17 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 31.40\) & \(p=0.997\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p=0.668\) \\ \hline
**Bud burst rate [\%]** & 101.91 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 7.03\) & 51.30 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 14.92\) & 44.29 \(\mathbf{c}\pm 13.86\) & 48.69 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 17.46\) & 64.14 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 9.71\) & \(p=0.348\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) \\ \hline
**Leaf area per shoot [cm]** & 4284.31 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 389.94\) & 548.31 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 110.94\) & 554.63 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 171.34\) & 642.91 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 137.13\) & 824.83 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 321.03\) & \(p=0.728\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p=0.097\) \\ \hline
**LA/m canopy [\(\mathbf{m}^{2}\)] before trimming** & 4.89 \(\mathbf{e}\pm 0.60\) & 8.72 \(\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}\pm 1.61\) & 8.96 \(\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}\pm 1.43\) & 9.81 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 1.10\) & 7.73 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 1.28\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p=0.570\) \\ \hline
**LA/m canopy [\(\mathbf{m}^{2}\)] after trimming** & 4.22 \(\mathbf{e}\pm 0.30\) & 5.83 \(\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}\pm 0.85\) & 5.63 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 0.50\) & 6.08 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 0.54\) & 5.39 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 0.65\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p=0.545\) \\ \hline
**Leaf area to fruit weight-ratio [cm\(\mathbf{a}^{2}\) g\({}^{-1}\)]** & 16.99 \(\mathbf{b}\pm 4.82\) & 14.01 \(\mathbf{c}\pm 3.35\) & 16.69 \(\mathbf{b}\mathbf{c}\pm 6.48\) & 21.49 \(\mathbf{a}\pm 4.24\) & 19.04 \(\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b}\pm 3.76\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p<0.001\) & \(p=0.003\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Mean values and standard deviation (\(\pm\)SD) of vegetative and generative parameters of \(\mathbf{c}\)v. [PERSON] trained in VSP and SMPH training system with shoot thinning (SMPH ST), biotechnological thinning (SMPH GA) and bunch thinning (SMPH BT) across the years 2017–2019. Different letters between the treatments indicate significant differences.