## 3 Results
### Bunch Structure Measures
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cultultour** & **Year** & **Length (cm)** & **Width (cm)** & **Bunch Weight (\%)** & **No of Series** & **Total Berry Weight (\%)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{R} & 2014 & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** & **aCO\({}_{2}\)** \\  & 2014 & 9.92 \(\pm\) 0.19 & 10.46 \(\pm\) 0.31 & 6.29 \(\pm\) 0.95 & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.89 & 108.14 \(\pm\) 5.50 & 1518.9 \(\pm\) 9.11 & 85.9 \(\pm\) 8.20 & 112.7 \(\pm\) 1.8 & 1002.6 \(\pm\) 15.36 & 138.77 \(\pm\) 7.24 \\  & \% & -5.4 & -5.4 & -14.0 & -4.4 & -4.4 & -4.2 & -4.3 \\  & 2015 & 10.56 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 12.19 \(\pm\) 0.82 & 6.69 \(\pm\) 0.65 & 70.88 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 14.56 \(\pm\) 7.35 & 158.04 \(\pm\) 2.882 & 113.6 \(\pm\) 9.5 & 122.1 \(\pm\) 1.84 & 125.18 \(\pm\) 6.67 & 137.6 \(\pm\) 85.29 \\  & 2016 & 9.67 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 13.06 \(\pm\) 0.97 & 6.00 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 7.33 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 130.07 \(\pm\) 13.09 & 2379.8 \(\pm\) 16.46 & 97.2 \(\pm\) 10.8 & 156.3 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 121.06 \(\pm\) 12.95 & 222.2 \(\pm\) 15.90 \\  & \% & -4.51 & -4.2 & -4.2 & -4.8 & -4.0 & -4.0 & -4.8 \\  & 2015 & 15.58 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 16.80 \(\pm\) 0.36 & 6.81 \(\pm\) 1.00 & 7.47 \(\pm\) 0.39 & 136.81 \(\pm\) 20.38 & 2190.04 \(\pm\) 3.97 & 110.9 \(\pm\) 9.2 & 154.4 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 127.79 \(\pm\) 19.75 & 205.48 \(\pm\) 4.22 \\ CS & \% & -4.59 & -4.9 & -4.0 & -4.0 & -4.0 & -4.8 & -4.0 \\  & 2016 & 14.31 \(\pm\) 0.17 & 15.64 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 6.56 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 80.88 \(\pm\) 0.66 & 164.04 \(\pm\) 10.95 & 2125.5 \(\pm\) 11.11 & 102.1 \(\pm\) 4.9 & 128.99 \(\pm\) 4.6 & 153.95 \(\pm\) 9.12 & 200.04 \(\pm\) 10.68 \\  & \% & +9.3 & -4.78 & -4.2 & -4.2 & -4.2 & -4.2 & -4.3 & -4.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Bunch structure of second positioned bunches of cvs. Riesing (R) and Cabernet Suvivignon (CS) at two CO\({}_{2}\) levels (aCO\({}_{2}\) and eCO\({}_{2}\)) one day prior harvest date in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Percentages show the changes of eCO\({}_{2}\) related to aCO\({}_{2}\) treatment. The most frequent berry size for Cabernet Sauvignon in 2015 was category 4 (10-12.5 mm) for aCO\({}_{2}\) and category 5 for eCO\({}_{2}\) treatment. On average, 9.2% more berries were counted in size category 6 under eCO\({}_{2}\) in 2015. In 2016, the most frequent berry size was category 5 for both CO\({}_{2}\) treatments. Smaller berries of category 1 and 2 were less than 1% in Cabernet Sauvignon for both years. The statistical analysis on berry size classes showed no distinct differences between eCO\({}_{2}\) and aCO\({}_{2}\) for both Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon within a year (Figure 12). For example, the most probable difference, estimated by the 16,000 posterior predictions of berry size category distances, was associated with \"no difference\" (zero). This coincided with the median difference for all five analyses. While the distribution for Riesling showed no visual skewness, for Cabernet Sauvignon, especially in 2015, there was a tendency for positive differences being slightly more probable than negative differences. That is, the sum of probabilities for eCO\({}_{2}\) berries being categorized as larger with 42% was twice as high as that for being categorized as smaller with 20% (Table S1, Supplementary Materials). For Riesling, all three years showed more or less the same results. As mentioned before, the highest probability comparing one randomly picked berry from each treatment, eCO\({}_{2}\) and aCO\({}_{2}\)  
Figure 10: Posterior predicted difference (median and 50% HDI) between eCO\({}_{2}\) and aCO\({}_{2}\) for each measurement year from Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects models on bunch parameters of Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon. Percentages represent the probability of eCO\({}_{2}\)-aCO\({}_{2}>0\). Filled symbols indicate “significant differences”, if the probability is \(>\)90% (positive difference) or \(<\)10% (negative difference).