## 3 Results
### Berry Skin Phenylpropanoids
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**F 3\({}^{\prime}\)5\({}^{\prime}\)OH Activity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**3\({}^{\prime}\)-OMT Activity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**5\({}^{\prime}\)-OMT Activity**} \\ \hline
**Irrig.** & **Samp.** & **CTRL** & **SWE** & **CTRL** & **SWE** & **CTRL** & **SWE** \\
**Regime** & **Time** & & & & & & \\ \hline  & t0 & 3.93 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 4.40 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 6.84 \(\pm\) 0.7 a & 6.45 \(\pm\) 0.7 a & 9.30 \(\pm\) 0.6 a & 10.04 \(\pm\) 0.7 a \\ WW & t1 & 2.86 \(\pm\) 0.40 a & 3.69 \(\pm\) 0.56 a & 8.08 \(\pm\) 0.6 a & 6.88 \(\pm\) 1.4 b & 14.12 \(\pm\) 1.4 a & 10.48 \(\pm\) 0.4 b \\  & t2 & 5.09 \(\pm\) 0.15 a & 2.42 \(\pm\) 0.09 b & 11.73 \(\pm\) 0.9 a & 11.31 \(\pm\) 2.2 a & 29.23 \(\pm\) 3.9 a & 9.60 \(\pm\) 3.2 b \\ \hline  & t0 & 5.42 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 5.42 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 10.30 \(\pm\) 1.9 a & 10.30 \(\pm\) 1.9 a & 12.34 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 12.20 \(\pm\) 0.4 a \\ WS & t1 & 4.29 \(\pm\) 0.15 a & 4.13 \(\pm\) 0.14 a & 8.47 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 6.69 \(\pm\) 1.6 b & 16.00 \(\pm\) 1.4 a & 13.57 \(\pm\) 1.1 b \\  & t2 & 4.55 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 3.89 \(\pm\) 0.31 b & 14.02 \(\pm\) 0.3 a & 13.25 \(\pm\) 0.9 a & 22.36 \(\pm\) 2.0 a & 22.27 \(\pm\) 4.9 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Means (+SE, \(n\) = 10) followed by distinct letters within the same parameter and row are significantly different according to the LSD test (_p_ \(\leq\) 0.05). Measurements were conducted at t0, t1 and t2.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Enzymatic activities computed as ratios of anthocyanin amounts in berry skin of _V. vinifera_ treated with _A. nodosum_ extract (SWE) and untreated plants (CTRL), under two irrigation regimes (WW, well-watered; WS, water stressed). Moreover, SWE vines showed lower 3\({}^{\prime}\)-OMT activity than CTRL only at t\({}_{1}\), in both irrigation regimes. The 5\({}^{\prime}\)-OMT enzymatic activity was also affected by _A. nodosum_ treatments, that lowered 5\({}^{\prime}\)-OMT in WW treated vines at t\({}_{1}\) and t\({}_{2}\), and also in WS vines at t\({}_{1}\) (Table 3). Figure 3: Berry skin individual anthocyanin amounts in _V. vinifera_ treated with _A. nodosum_ extract (SWE) and untreated plants (CTRL) under two irrigation regimes (WW, well-watered; WS, water stressed). (**A**) Delphinidin, (**B**) Petunidin, (**C**) Malvidin, (**D**) Cyanidin, (**E**) Penoidin, and (**F**) Total anthocyanin contents. Means (\(\pm\)SE, \(n\) = 5) followed by distinct letters within the same water regime and sampling time are significantly different according to the LSD test (\(p\leq\) 0.05). Measurements were conducted at t\({}_{0}\) (white bar), t\({}_{1}\) (grey bar), and t\({}_{2}\) (dark grey bar). Figure 4: Berry skin anthocyanins methoxylation in _V. vinifera_ treated with _A. nodosum_ extract (SWE) and untreated plants (CTRL) under two irrigation regimes (WW, well-watered; WS, water stressed). **(A)** Methoxylated/non-methoxyated anthocyanins ratio; **(B)** % of methoxylated anthocyanins on total anthocyanin content. Means (\(\pm\)SE, \(n=5\)) followed by distinct letters within the same water regime and sampling time are significantly different according to the LSD test (\(p\leq 0.05\)). Measurements were conducted at t\({}_{0}\) (white bar), t\({}_{1}\) (grey bar), and t\({}_{2}\) (dark grey bar)  
Figure 5: Berry skin hydroxycinnamic acids and flavonoids in _V. vinifera_ treated with _A. nodosum_ extract (SWE) and untreated plants (CTRL) under two irrigation regimes (WW, well-watered; WS, water stressed). **(A)** Hydroxylcinnamic acids, **(B)** Quercetin derivatives, **(C)** Kaempfer derivatives, and **(D)** Total phenolic contents. Means (\(\pm\)SE, \(n=5\)) followed by distinct letters within the same water regime and sampling time are significantly different according to the LSD test (\(p\leq 0.05\)). Measurements were conducted at t\({}_{0}\) (white bar), t\({}_{1}\) (grey bar), and t\({}_{2}\) (dark grey bar).