## Materials and Methods
### Winemaking Process  
Grape samples NS1, NS2, NS3, NS4, NS5, CS1, CS2, and SS1, collected from the different areas (the specifications for each vineyard are shown in Table 1) were subjected to vinicification using a standardized process to minimize effects due to technology. All these grape samples came from the most representative vineyards of the three different areas, NS, CS and SS, object of this study. Briefly, stems were removed from 50 kg of grapes by means of an automatic stainless-steel crusher destemmer (Enoitalia, Italia) and the must obtained was transferred into 100 L bins. The following were added to the musts: 10 g dry yeast (_Saccharomyces cerevisiae_, Franke, Italy), 15 g (NH4)2 HPO4 (Franke, Italy), and 3.5 g hL\({}^{-1}\) K\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{5}\) (Franke, Italy). Then, musts were subjected to a 10-day maceration at controlled temperature (\(<\)28 \({}^{\circ}\)C), punching the cap down twice a day and measuring must temperature and sugars at the same time to monitor alcoholic fermentation. Fermentation stopped when the sugar content reached 0, measured in Babo units. To separate the must from the marcs, a 40 L hydraulic press ([PERSON], Italy) was used at a maximum pressure of 2 bar and the resulting wine, corrected with sulfur dioxide, to achieve a value of at least 30 mg L\({}^{-1}\) of free SO\({}_{2}\), was transferred in a 1 hL stainless steel container and put in a cell at a temperature of 16 \({}^{\circ}\)C until the analyses. Wines were racked ten days after pressing, then K\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{5}\) was again added to preserve wines from oxidation. Finally, after a second racking, performed two months later by the addition of K\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{5}\), wines were subjected to sensory analysis.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Parameter** & **Unit** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**VINEYARDS**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**North**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Centre**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**South**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & **NS1** & **NS2** & **NS3** & **NS4** & **NS5** & **CS1** & **CS2** & **SS1** \\ \hline  & Altitude & m & 40 & 120 & 40 & 50 & 260 & 220 & 220 & 40 \\  & Yield & tons & 152 & 76 & 65 & 91 & 119 & 98 & 106 & 109 \\
**agronomic** & Yield/vine & kg & 4.47 & 228 & 1.86 & 246 & 3.15 & 2.11 & 2.36 & 2.08 \\  & Pruning & Spur cordon & Cane & Spar cordon & Cane & Cane & Cane & Spur cordon & Spur cordon \\  & Rootstock & & 1103 P & 1103 P & Rupestous du lot & 1103 P & 140 R & 1103 P & 1103 P \\  & Clone/biortype & & Cko 13 & Cko 13 & Local selection & Cko 13 & Caps 1 & Local selection & Local selection & Cko 13 \\  & Imrigation & & yes & yes & no & yes & yes & no & no & yes \\ \hline  & Sand & \% & 40.5 & 89.3 & 52 & 60.3 & 78.1 & 55 & 61 & 53.5 \\  & Silk & \% & 23.9 & 2.2 & 35.5 & 18.5 & 5.1 & 20 & 18 & 7.5 \\  & Clay & \% & 35.6 & 8.5 & 12.5 & 21.2 & 16.8 & 25 & 21 & 39 \\  & pH & (H\({}_{4}\)O) & 7.3 & 7.7 & 7.2 & 8.4 & 8.7 & 6.9 & 6.8 & 8.1 \\
**physico-chemical** & Opigmic carbon & g/kg & 4.9 & 2.8 & 0.73 & 2.3 & 2.7 & 0.96 & 1.26 & 2.5 \\  & Organic matter & g/kg & 14 & 7 & 1.26 & 5 & 16 & 0.8 & 0.7 & 4.4 \\  & Active limestone & g/kg & 8 & 6 & 9 & 22 & 53 & 2 & 1.2 & 42 \\  & Total limestone & g/kg & 26 & 14 & 23 & 95 & 166 & 11 & 9 & 122 \\  & Total nitrogen & g/kg & 0.7 & 0.6 & 0.10 & 0.7 & 0.51 & 0.6 & 0.9 & 0.56 \\  & Base exchange & meg/100 g & 16 & 10.4 & 18.1 & 8.6 & 30.2 & 6.70 & 5.2 & 15.4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Agoronomic and physical-chemical characteristics of grapes and vineyards in the different locations