Previous Article in Journal
Main Mechanical Forces to Analyse the Chemical Interactions Shaping Backbone Torsion Angles in DNA Tertiary Structures
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
AppliedChem
Volume 5
Issue 4
10.3390/appliedchem5040027
appliedchem-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Grapevine Rootstock Genotype Influences Nitrogen Levels, Must and Wine Composition, and Sensory Characteristics of Assyrtiko (Vitis vinifera L.)

by
Evangelos Beris
*,
Markos Psarros
,
Vasiliki Konstantakopoulou
,
Alexandra Evangelou
*,
Georgios Banilas
and
Elias Korkas
Department of Wine, Vine and Beverage Sciences, School of Food Sciences, University of West Attica, 12243 Athens, Greece
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
AppliedChem 2025, 5(4), 27; https://doi.org/10.3390/appliedchem5040027
Submission received: 13 August 2025 / Revised: 10 September 2025 / Accepted: 26 September 2025 / Published: 10 October 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examined the impact of five grapevine rootstocks (R110, 140Ru, 3309C, 41B, and FERCAL) on must composition, nitrogen status, and sensory attributes of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Assyrtiko wines. Vines were grown under uniform vineyard conditions, and microvinifications were conducted consistently across treatments. Rootstock genotype significantly influenced Baumé, density, titratable acidity, pH, and yeast-assimilable nitrogen (YAN). Musts from R110 contained the highest YAN (226.80 ± 0.99 mg/L) and intermediate Baumé (12.5°), whereas 140Ru exhibited the lowest YAN (132.60 ± 0.46 mg/L) and Baumé (11.7°). Wines from R110 contained the highest tannin concentration (0.375 g/L), while FERCAL produced the highest ethanol content (13.1% vol). Sensory evaluation revealed significant rootstock effects on color intensity, aroma intensity, aroma complexity, balance, and overall quality, with R110 and 3309C receiving the highest scores. The findings demonstrate that rootstock selection may affect the chemical and sensory profile of Assyrtiko wines, providing a practical tool for optimizing wine style and quality across diverse viticultural environments. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore extra parameters and novel rootstock–scion interactions.

1. Introduction

The use of American rootstocks in viticulture was introduced as the primary strategy to combat the Phylloxera epidemic that nearly destroyed European vineyards during the 19th century. While the European grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) is highly susceptible to the root-feeding form of the insect, American species such as V. riparia, V. rupestris, and V. berlandieri exhibit natural resistance due to co-evolution with the pest [1,2]. Therefore, grafting European grape varieties onto American—often interspecific—rootstocks remains the standard and most effective strategy to prevent Phylloxera damage [3,4]. However, rootstocks play a broader role, as they display multiple properties including resistance to soil-borne pests and diseases (such as nematodes and fungal pathogens), adaptation to diverse soil conditions (i.e., drought, salinity, and excessive CaCO3), control over vine vigor and nutrient uptake, improved compatibility with specific scion varieties, and improved fruit composition [5,6,7,8,9].
Previous studies have shown that rootstocks can significantly influence berry composition, particularly the accumulation of flavonoids, anthocyanins, and tannins, which are critical for wine color, structure, and aging potential [4,10]. These effects are often linked to rootstock-mediated changes in berry skin development, water status, or nutrient partitioning during ripening. Moreover, rootstocks may alter important parameters such as total soluble solids, titratable acidity, and pH in the must, thereby shaping the resulting wine profile [11,12]. While nitrogen availability plays a role in these outcomes, the impact of rootstock on secondary metabolites—such as phenolics—appears to involve broader physiological and metabolic pathways, often interacting with environmental factors such as drought and soil composition [13,14].
Nitrogen (N) is a key nutrient for vine growth and berry development, but it also has a direct impact on wine production by influencing alcoholic fermentation, particularly through its contribution to yeast-assimilable nitrogen (YAN), which includes the inorganic nitrogen (ammonium) and organic nitrogen (amino acids) essential for the yeast during fermentation [15]. Low YAN concentrations can lead to slow or stuck fermentations and the formation of undesirable sulfur compounds, while excessive YAN may increase volatile acidity and microbial instability [16]. Although nitrogen can be supplemented to the must, either in organic or inorganic form, before or during fermentation to optimize fermentation kinetics and enhance wine aroma [17], the naturally occurring nitrogen levels in the vine and grapes hold multiple aspects of importance. These nitrogen levels are assumed to be partially dependent on the vigor imparted by the rootstock to the scion [18]. However, the mechanisms and overall effects of rootstocks on N levels in the vine and grapes have not been yet fully understood [19]. Evidence suggests that rootstock genotype can influence nitrogen uptake, transport, and assimilation [20] through root-specific gene regulation [21].
The influence of rootstocks on grapevine performance and fruit composition has been extensively studied only in major international cultivars such as Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Shiraz [11,22,23,24], while some additional research exists on varieties like Albariño [25]. However, studies on indigenous cultivars remain limited.
Assyrtiko is a winegrape cultivar indigenous to the Aegean islands renowned for producing top-class white wines, while retaining high acidity under warm and dry conditions. Although primarily associated with the unique volcanic terroir of Santorini [26], Assyrtiko has recently gained wider recognition and cultivation in Greece and abroad due to its viticultural and oenological potential [27]. Wines are characterized as crisp, bold, and vibrant with firm structure, high acidity, mineral character, and a delicate sense of salinity [26]. Rootstock effects on Assyrtiko have not been thoroughly explored. Moreover, while rootstock effects on vine growth and berry composition are well documented, their influence on sensory characteristics and overall wine quality has received comparatively little attention, particularly for indigenous varieties.
The main objective of the present study was to assess the effects of five commonly used rootstocks (R110, 140Ru, 3309C, 41B, and FERCAL) on nitrogen levels, grape and wine composition, and sensory attributes of wines produced from Assyrtiko grapes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Vineyard Site and Management—Experimental Design

The study was conducted at the experimental vineyard of the university of West Attica in Egaleo Grove (37°59′52″ Ν, 23°40′34″ Ε). The soil across the entire plot was homogeneous and classified as loam, consisting of 50.1% sand, 34.5% silt, and 15.5% clay. It exhibited a pH of 7.3, an organic matter content of 1.84%, and a total calcium carbonate (CaCO3) content of 25.5%. Meteorological conditions were uniform across the entire experimental plot. The study was conducted during the 2024 growing season. Although 2024 was a hot year in Greece, the weather during the growing season was characterized as moderate and the vintage as relatively late-ripening for the Attica region, with an average annual temperature of 20.8 °C and 387.8 mm total precipitation. All vines were five years old and shared the same scion material, grafted with the Assyrtiko cultivar (clone E16), ensuring that rootstock was the only experimental variable. Each pair of planting rows was assigned to a different rootstock, with each row consisting of 30 vines (60 vines per rootstock). For the experiments, a randomized block experimental process was designed [28], and included three blocks of 20 vines per rootstock. Vines were trained to a unilateral “Cordon de Royat” system and pruned to 8–10 buds per vine. Shoot thinning was carried out twice in each growing season, and shoot topping was performed when shoots reached a length of approximately 1.10 m. Drip irrigation was applied biweekly (beginning in mid-May) and moderate fertilization with Nutri-Leaf 20-20-20 + T.E. (Miller, Hanover, PA, USA) was performed twice a year (mid-May and mid-June) with a dose of 2 kg per hectare through irrigation. The phenological stage of flowering appeared simultaneously across all rootstocks. Grape harvest occurred on the morning of 7 September 2024. The day of the harvest was determined by conducting frequent measurements of the sugar content, density, and acidity, as well as sensory examination of the grapes including berry weight, texture, and seed maturation (the decisive point was over 12° Beaume with balancing acidity and fully matured seeds). Sampling involved the random collection of 6–8 berries from various parts of randomly selected clusters. For each replicate, samples were taken from three clusters per vine (20 vines per replicate) and each treatment (rootstock) consisted of three replicates.

2.2. Must Preparation and Micro-Vinification

Grapes were manually crushed, and the extracted juice was filtered through a 0.5 mm sieve to remove coarse particles. A representative must sample of 250 mL from each replicate was kept for the oenological analyses. The remaining must was centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 5 min. An aliquot part of the centrifuged must was transferred into plastic Eppendorf tubes and frozen at −20 °C for later analysis of yeast-assimilable nitrogen (YAN).
The biggest volume of the centrifuged must (approximately 1 L for each replicate) was transferred into new 1.5 L plastic fermentation bottles equipped with integrated airlocks for the process of vinification. The yeast strain Saccharomyces cerevisiae VIN 13 was used across all microvinifications, as a single inoculum, to ensure uniform fermentation conditions. Yeast was rehydrated in deionized water (10 g/100 mL), stirred using a sterile glass stirring rod, and maintained at 30 °C for 30 min. Following rehydration, inoculation was performed using a graduated pipette, delivering 3 mL of yeast suspension into each must sample to achieve a final concentration of 30 g/hL. Bottles were sealed and airlocks were filled with pure ethanol (99.8%). Microvinification was conducted in triplicate for each rootstock. Fermentations were carried out at the laboratory of ‘Wine analysis’ under control temperature conditions (20 ± 2 °C) until must density was stabilized, indicating completion. Then, sulphite addition was conducted at a dose of 60 mg/L total SO2. Throughout fermentation, visual determination of the yeast strain was monitored under microscope (Olympus CX21, Tokyo, Japan).
The speed and duration of fermentations were determined by conducting daily measurements of density using a portable density meter (DMA 35 BASIC, Anton Paar, Graz, Austria) and calculating reduced density curves (Figure 1).

2.3. Chemical Analyses

2.3.1. Classical Analyses in Musts and Wines

Sugar content (°Bé) and density (g/L) were measured in centrifuged must samples using a portable density meter (DMA 35 BASIC, Anton Paar, Graz, Austria). Sugar content was expressed in degrees Baumé (°Bé), a common winemaking scale that correlates with total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix) [29]. The pH in both must and wine samples was measured with a pH meter (Hanna Edge HI 2002-02, North Kingstown, RI, USA). Ethanol content (alcoholic strength, % vol), titratable acidity (TA, g tartaric acid/L), and volatile acidity (VA, g acetic acid/L) were measured according to International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) methods [29]. Reducing Sugars (RS) in wine samples were determined using the Luff method, in accordance with the OIV protocols [29].

2.3.2. Total Tannins (TT)

To determine the total tannin content (TT) in wine samples, the Bate Smith method (or acid hydrolysis) was used, whereby tannins (proanthocyanidins) are converted to anthocyanins through heating in an acidic environment [30]. Briefly, from each wine sample, two aliquots were taken: one was boiled, and the other remained at room temperature. The optical densities (absorbance) of both samples were measured at 550 nm using a UV mini 1240 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), with a 10 mm path length cuvette. To calculate total tannins in g/L of wine, the absorbance values were applied in the following formula:
TT (g/L) = (d2 − d1) × k
where d1 = absorbance of the unheated sample, d2 = absorbance of the heated sample, and k = 19.35 if (d2 − d1) > 0.07 or k = 20.83 if (d2 − d1) ≤ 0.07.

2.3.3. Nitrogen Level Determination

In must and wine samples, free amino nitrogen (FAN) and ammonium nitrogen concentrations were measured using an automatic enzymatic analyzer (Hyperlab, Steroglass, Perugia, Italy), with the appropriate enzymatic kits, following the analyzer’s instructions. FAN enzymatic determination was based on the NOPA method [31]. Yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN, mg N/L) was calculated as the sum of FAN and ammonium nitrogen.
All of the above chemical analyses were conducted in triplicate.

2.4. Sensory Evaluation

The organoleptic study took place under optimum conditions (absence of odors and noises, controlled temperature, neutral lighting, white surfaces, and individual booths containing a sink and tap to avoid external destructions) in the laboratory of ‘Sensory control’ at the Egaleo Park campus of the University of West Attica. The study was conducted by a panel of eight (8) experienced accessors (expert panel) consisting of 50% male and 50% female tasters aged from 26 to 46 years old. The wines were served in standard ISO wine-tasting glasses (INAO type), with a capacity of 220 mL, at a serving temperature of 10–11 °C. Tasting was blind and randomized as wines from different rootstocks were served simultaneously in glasses that displayed only a code. Evaluation was based on the judgment of the expert panelists using a 10-point scale for each parameter. The organoleptic attributes evaluated were color intensity (1 = very pale, 10 = very dark), aromatic intensity, aromatic complexity (1 = not complex, 10 = very complex), perceived acidity, perceived sweetness, astringency, alcohol perception, body/concentration (1 = light body, 10 = full body), balance (1 = no balance, 10 = very balanced), aftertaste duration (1 = short, 10 = long), and overall quality (1 = low, 10 = high). The entire evaluation was repeated one week after the first one by the same panel.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS v.29 (IBM Chicago, IL, USA). One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed for each chemical and sensory parameter to investigate significant differences. One-Way ANOVA was followed by post hoc tests to indicate differences among specific rootstocks. Tukey’s HSD post hoc test was primarily used if allowed by assumptions. Prior to analysis, Levene’s test was performed to examine the assumption of equal variances.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chemical Composition and Nitrogen Status of Assyrtiko Must

Overall, rootstock genotype presented a strong influence on must composition. In the case of Assyrtiko, high sugar content results in high alcohol levels, as well as high concentration and low pH being expected characteristics. Present results showed that Baumé degrees and must density differed significantly among rootstocks (Table 1), indicating rootstock-based effects on appearance time of phenological stages, including ripeness. Corso et al. [32] reported that rootstock selection may affect ripeness levels by modulating auxin-related genes, as ripeness is regulated by a multipart network of mobile signals including auxins and other hormones. In the present study, Baumé ranged from 11.7° in 140Ru (significantly lowest) to 12.8° in FERCAL (significantly highest), with R110 and 3309C occupying intermediate positions and 41B intermediate–high. As expected, density followed a similar pattern as 41B and FERCAL showed the highest mean densities (1.0955 and 1.0950 g/L, respectively), while 140Ru had the lowest (1.0866 g/L). Such rootstock-driven shifts in ripening and soluble solids are commonly attributed to differences in water relations, nutrient uptake, and vigor mediated by the rootstock [33]. As previously reported, rootstocks that confer high vigor to the scion can extend the vegetative growth cycle, thereby delaying ripening [32,34].
Total titratable acidity also differed among rootstocks (Table 1). 41B, FERCAL, and 140Ru were grouped among the higher-acidity musts (4.93, 4.90, and 4.88 g/L, respectively), whereas 3309C produced the lowest TA (4.48 g/L). Correspondingly, pH varied significantly, and R110 musts had the highest pH (4.25), while 41B presented the lowest pH (4.01). The inverse relationship between TA and pH across rootstocks suggests differences in acid accumulation and cation (notably K+) uptake, processes known to be modulated by rootstock genotype and to influence must buffering capacity and subsequent wine stability. These rootstock effects on acidity are in line with prior observations in other cultivars [11,33,35].
Nitrogen status (FAN, ammoniacal N, and YAN) presented rootstock effects. Musts from R110 contained the highest concentrations of α-amino nitrogen (FAN = 128.1 mg/L) and ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4+ = 98.7 mg/L), resulting in a mean YAN of 226.8 mg/L, significantly greater than all the other rootstocks (Table 2). In contrast, 140Ru produced the lowest YAN (132.6 6 mg/L), with 3309C, 41B, and FERCAL occupying intermediate positions (Table 2). In a previous study, R110 also produced grapes with higher YAN compared to a low vigor rootstock (420A, V. berlandieri × V. riparia) in Cabernet Sauvignon [35]. However, in a more recent study, R110 resulted in lower YAN and FAN compared to other rootstocks in Pinot noir [28].
Rootstock effects on nitrogen levels recorded on the plant and grapes may derive from variations in root system architecture, nutrient uptake efficiency, and the allocation and remobilization of nitrogen within the vine. These differences can influence both the timing of ripening and the overall nutrient balance of the scion, reflecting broader impacts on nutrient dynamics and vine physiological status [36,37].

3.2. Fermentation Duration and Kinetics

Fermentation kinetics varied among rootstocks. Although alcoholic fermentation progressed smoothly to dryness in all treatments, duration differed significantly across rootstocks (F4,10 = 13.875, p = 0.0004). For each rootstock, the three biological replicates showed remarkable consistency with each other, both in rate and duration (Figure 1). R110 displayed the most rapid fermentation (11.0 ± 1 days), while FERCAL required the longest time (17.33 ± 0.66 days) (mean ± SE). The rootstocks 140Ru (16.33 ± 0.88 days), 3309C (16.0 ± 0.0 days), and 41B (16.0 ± 0.00 days) presented intermediate fermentation duration values (mean ± SE). Differences in fermentation speed are likely to reflect the combined influence of yeast-assimilable nitrogen and sugar concentration as well as possible variations in the micronutrient profile imparted by each rootstock. Higher YAN levels, as observed in R110 musts, are generally associated with faster yeast growth and shorter fermentation times, whereas lower YAN can limit fermentation rate and result in prolonged completion [15,16,38].
Fermentation duration can influence wine quality, with slower fermentations often favoring aromatic complexity and balance, while very rapid fermentations may reduce volatile retention. Conversely, excessively prolonged fermentations, often associated with nutrient deficiencies or yeast stress, can compromise quality. Overall, the correlation between fermentation duration and wine quality is context-dependent, shaped by must composition, yeast strain, nutrient status, and fermentation conditions [16].

3.3. Wine Composition, Tannins, and Nitrogen Status

Differences were detected on the chemical profile of the finished wines (Table 3) and on residual nitrogen pools after fermentation (Table 4). Alcoholic strength varied significantly among rootstocks, with wines from FERCAL showing the highest ethanol content (13.1% vol) and those from 140Ru the lowest (10.2% vol), with corresponding results in wine density. These differences are consistent with the variation in must sugar content at harvest and are likely to reflect rootstock effects on ripening rate and berry composition [4,20]. Residual sugar levels were generally low across all treatments, indicating that alcoholic fermentation progressed to completion in most cases. Acid-base attributes in the wines followed patterns already evident in the musts. Wines from 140Ru displayed the highest titratable acidity and lowest pH, while R110 wines exhibited the lowest acidity and highest pH. Such differences may be linked to rootstock-mediated variation in potassium uptake [2]. Volatile acidity was distinctly higher in 140Ru wines, which may be associated with its lower initial YAN and sugar concentrations, conditions that may challenge yeast metabolism and increase acetic acid production (Table 3).
Total tannin concentration in the finished wines was significantly influenced by rootstock. R110 wines contained the highest tannin level (0.375 g/L), whereas 41B and 140Ru produced the lowest tannin concentrations (0.167 g/L and 0.208 g/L, respectively). In a previous study, the levels of tannins in musts from own-rooted vines were significantly higher compared to all rootstocks but did not vary significantly among different rootstocks [11]. As Assyrtiko is considered a white variety with remarkably high levels of tannins and total phenolics, the concentration of tannins as a result of vineyard conditions—including rootstock selection—is viticulturally and enologically meaningful. Differences in concentrations of tannins may arise from altered berry structure or phenolic biosynthesis. It is known that tannins and other phenolic compounds affect mouthfeel, oxidative stability, and the potential for aging [39,40,41].
Residual nitrogen in the wines mirrored must nitrogen status and differed by rootstock (Table 4). R110 wines retained the highest residual FAN (57.7 mg/L) and YAN (62.7 mg/L), while FERCAL wines retained the lowest residual nitrogen. These values reflect dynamics of nitrogen assimilation by yeast during fermentation, as R110 had substantially higher initial YAN in the must, which explains both the fast fermentation rate and the larger residual pools after fermentation. The magnitude and timing of nitrogen uptake by yeast influence fermentation kinetics, aromatic compound formation, and the risk of fermentation problems [15,38]. Overall, rootstocks that produced musts with higher YAN and sugar (e.g., R110 and 3309C) supported faster, more complete fermentations and yielded wines with higher alcohol, lower volatile acidity, and greater residual FAN, while 140Ru—characterized by lower Baume and low must YAN—exhibited slower fermentation kinetics, lower alcohol, and substantially elevated volatile acidity.

3.4. Sensory Profile

The sensory evaluation revealed significant differences in several wine organoleptic attributes. Color intensity differed markedly among treatments (p < 0.00001), with wines from 140Ru clearly presenting a darker—brownish hue compared to all other wines. Aroma intensity (p = 0.0104) and aroma complexity (p = 0.0044) also varied significantly, with R110 and 3309C wines consistently achieving higher scores compared to the other rootstocks (Figure 2). In contrast, perception of acidity (F4,75 = 0.751, p = 0.5607) and perceived sweetness (F4,75 = 0.669, p = 0.9076) did not differ significantly (Figure 3), indicating that these parameters were perceived by the panel as equally pronounced among different rootstocks, despite the differences that were detected in the enological analysis of titratable acidity and reducing sugars, respectively (Table 3).
Astringency (F4,75 = 0.518, p = 0.7230), perceived alcohol (F4,75 = 1.352, p = 0.2589), and aftertaste (F4,75 = 0.411, p = 0.8001) also showed no significant variation among rootstocks (Figure 4). The same case was recorded in the perception of body/mouthfeel/viscosity (F4,75 = 2.232, p = 0.0734), with R110 and 3309C scoring slightly higher. Significant effects were recorded for balance and overall quality (p < 0.00001), where R110 and 3309C again ranked highest, suggesting a consistent panel preference for these wines (Figure 5).
Wine organoleptic parameters in relation to different grapevine rootstocks have not been extensively studied and further examination is required to draw accurate conclusions. However, rootstock genotype seems to play an indirect—thought important—role in several wine characteristics. These characteristics unavoidably affect the sensory profile of the final wines [42]. Therefore, certain rootstocks can serve as valuable tools in optimizing wine quality in specific winegrape cultivars. Assyrtiko is well-known for producing exceptional white wines, as own-rooted, in the volcanic terroir of Santorini [27]. However, the effect of different rootstocks on its quality attributes had not been investigated. In the present study, while 140Ru produced Assyrtiko wines with comparatively lower scores for aroma and balance, wines from R110 and 3309C consistently scored highest for overall quality. Panelists also detected greater aromatic complexity and balance in R110 wines. Although it consistently performs poorly in yield components, R110 seems to enhance grape and wine quality. This evidence is also supported by the study of Olarte Mantilla et al. [24] who found that Syrah wines from R110 presented greater sensory characteristics compared to other rootstocks and own-rooted vines. Overall, these results align with recent findings showing that rootstock selection may influence sensory outcomes by modulating grape composition, acid–sugar balance, and phenolic content, key parameters shaping aromatic expression, structural harmony, and perceived quality [42,43,44].

4. Conclusions

Rootstock genotype had a marked effect on the nitrogen status and chemical composition of musts and wines from Vitis vinifera cv. Assyrtiko, as well as on certain sensory attributes of the resulting wines. Assyrtiko is renowned for producing world-class wines when grown on its own roots in the phylloxera-resistant volcanic terroir of Santorini. However, as its cultivation expands to diverse regions in Greece and abroad, there is an increasing need to assess its compatibility and interactions with phylloxera-resistant American rootstocks. The findings of this study highlight rootstock selection as a valuable viticultural tool for shaping wine style and ensuring the high-quality standards associated with Assyrtiko. Further research is needed to broaden the range of tested combinations and explore rootstock–scion interactions that may underline the chemical and sensory outcomes documented in the present study.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B., A.E. and E.K.; methodology, A.E., E.B., M.P. and V.K.; software, E.B., M.P. and V.K.; validation, G.B. and E.K.; formal analysis, E.B., M.P., V.K. and A.E.; investigation, E.B., A.E. and G.B.; resources, E.K.; data curation, E.B. and A.E.; writing—original draft preparation, E.B., A.E., M.P. and V.K.; writing—review and editing, E.B., A.E. and G.B.; visualization, M.P. and V.K.; supervision, E.B., G.B. and E.K.; project administration, E.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This kind of study is included in minimal-risk activities. Actually, this is a zero-risk activity for the experienced assessors as it involves zero consumption and no effort (minimal-risk activities allow consumption and longer sessions). The final products were wholesome containing no additives. In accordance with the Greek regulations (https://msc-dentech.uniwa.gr/wp-content/uploads/sites/493/2024/02/%CE%9C_4_1_%CE%9A%CE%91%CE%9D%CE%9F%CE%9D_%CE%94%CE%95%CE%9F%CE%9D%CE%A4%CE%9F%CE%9B_%CE%95%CE%A1%CE%95%CE%A5%CE%9D.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025)) and Committee for Protection of Human Subjects (Chapter 6, page 6, https://cphs.berkeley.edu/exempt.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025)), ethics approval is not required.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all panelists involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Arnold, C.; Schnitzler, A. Ecology and Genetics of Natural Populations of North American Vitis Species Used as Rootstocks in European Grapevine Breeding Programs. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Gautier, A.; Cookson, S.J.; Lagalle, L.; Ollat, N.; Marguerit, E. Influence of the Three Main Genetic Backgrounds of Grapevine Rootstocks on Petiolar Nutrient Concentrations of the Scion, with a Focus on Phosphorus. OENO One 2020, 54, 2458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Granett, J.; Walker, M.A.; Kocsis, L.; Omer, A.D. Biology and Management of Grape Phylloxera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2001, 46, 387–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Klimek, K.; Kapłan, M.; Najda, A. Influence of Rootstock on Yield Quantity and Quality, Contents of Biologically Active Compounds and Antioxidant Activity in Regent Grapevine Fruit. Molecules 2022, 27, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ollat, N.; Peccoux, A.; Papura, D.; Esmenjaud, D.; Marguerit, E.; Tandonnet, J.P.; Delrot, S. Rootstocks as a Component of Adaptation to Environment. In Grapevine in a Changing Environment; Gerós, A., Chaves, M., Gil, H., Delrot, S., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 68–108. [Google Scholar]
  6. Warschefsky, E.J.; Klein, L.; Frank, M.H.; Chitwood, D.H.; Londo, J.P.; von Wettberg, E.J.; Miller, A.J. Rootstocks: Diversity, Domestication, and Impacts on Shoot Phenotypes. Trends Plant Sci. 2016, 21, 418–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ferris, H.; Zheng, L.; Walker, M.A. Resistance of Grape Rootstocks to Plant-Parasitic Nematodes. J. Nematol. 2012, 44, 377–386. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baumgartner, K.; Rizzo, D.M. Relative Resistance of Grapevine Rootstocks to Armillaria Root Disease. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2006, 57, 408–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Darriaut, R.; Lailheugue, V.; Masneuf-Pomarède, I.; Marguerit, E.; Martins, G.; Compant, S.; Ballestra, P.; Upton, S.; Ollat, N.; Lauvergeat, V. Grapevine Rootstock and Soil Microbiome Interactions: Keys for a Resilient Viticulture. Hortic. Res. 2022, 9, uhac019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Liu, Z.; Zhu, C.; Sun, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, S.; Shi, W.; Wang, W.; Zhao, B. Influence of Rootstock on Endogenous Hormones and Color Change in Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 6608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Harbertson, J.F.; Keller, M. Rootstock Effects on Deficit-Irrigated Winegrapes in a Dry Climate: Grape and Wine Composition. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2012, 63, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, J.; Skinkis, P.A. Oregon ‘Pinot Noir’ Grape Anthocyanin Enhancement by Early Leaf Removal. Food Chem. 2013, 139, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Walker, R.R.; Blackmore, D.H.; Clingeleffer, P.R.; Correll, R.L. Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana): I. Yield and vigour inter-relationships. Austral. J. Grape Wine Res. 2002, 8, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Serra, I.; Strever, A.; Myburgh, P.A.; Deloire, A. The interaction between rootstocks and cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) to enhance drought tolerance in grapevine. Austral. J. Grape Wine Res. 2014, 20, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gobert, A.; Tourdot-Maréchal, R.; Sparrow, C.; Morge, C.; Alexandre, H. Influence of Nitrogen Status in Wine Alcoholic Fermentation. Food Microbiol. 2019, 83, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Bell, S.J.; Henschke, P.A. Implications of Nitrogen Nutrition for Grapes, Fermentation and Wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 242–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Godillot, J.; Sanchez, I.; Perez, M.; Picou, C.; Galeote, V.; Sablayrolles, J.M.; Farines, V.; Mouret, J.R. The Timing of Nitrogen Addition Impacts Yeast Genes Expression and the Production of Aroma Compounds during Wine Fermentation. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 829786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Keller, M.; Mills, L.J.; Harbertson, J.F. Rootstock Effects on Deficit-Irrigated Winegrapes in a Dry Climate: Vigor, Yield Formation, and Fruit Ripening. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2012, 63, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Blank, M.; Tittmann, S.; Ben Ghozlen, N.; Stoll, M. Grapevine rootstocks result in differences in leaf composition (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Pinot noir) detected through non-invasive fluorescence sensor technology. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2018, 24, 327–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lecourt, J.; Lauvergeat, V.; Ollat, N.; Vivin, P.; Cookson, S.J. Shoot and Root Ionome Responses to Nitrate Supply in Grafted Grapevines Are Rootstock Genotype Dependent. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2015, 21, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Cochetel, N.; Escudié, F.; Cookson, S.J.; Dai, Z.; Vivin, P.; Bert, P.F.; Muñoz, M.S.; Delrot, S.; Klopp, C.; Ollat, N.; et al. Root Transcriptomic Responses of Grafted Grapevines to Heterogeneous Nitrogen Availability Depend on Rootstock Genotype. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 4339–4355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Berdeja, M.; Hilbert, G.; Wu, D.Z.; Lafontaine, M.; Stoll, M.; Schultz, H.R.; Delrot, S. Effect of Water Stress and Rootstock Genotype on Pinot noir Berry Composition. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2014, 20, 409–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Miele, A.; Rizzon, L.A. Rootstock-Scion Interaction: Effect on the Composition of Cabernet Sauvignon Grape Must. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2017, 39, e-434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Olarte Mantilla, S.M.; Collins, C.; Iland, P.G.; Kidman, C.M.; Ristic, R.; Boss, P.K.; Jordans, C.; Bastian, S.E. Shiraz (Vitis vinifera L.) Berry and Wine Sensory Profiles and Composition Are Modulated by Rootstocks. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2018, 69, 32–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vilanova, M.; Genisheva, Z.; Tubío, M.; Álvarez, K.; Lissarrague, J.R.; Oliveira, J.M. Rootstock Effect on Volatile Composition of Albariño Wines. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karampatea, A.; Vrentzou, E.; Skendi, A.; Bouloumpasi, E. Effect of Vineyard Location on Assyrtiko Grape Ripening in Santorini and Its Wine’s Characteristics. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2024, 40, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sgouros, G.; Mallouchos, A.; Dourou, D.; Banilas, G.; Chalvantzi, I.; Kourkoutas, Y.; Nisiotou, A. Torulaspora delbrueckii May Help Manage Total and Volatile Acidity of Santorini-Assyrtiko Wine in View of Global Warming. Foods 2023, 12, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Blank, M.; Samer, S.; Stoll, M. Grapevine Rootstock Genotypes Influence Berry and Wine Phenolic Composition (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Pinot Noir). OENO One 2022, 56, 133–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. OIV—International Organisation of Vine and Wine. Compendium of International Methods of Wine and Must Analysis; International Organization of Vine and Wine: Paris, France, 2009; pp. 154–196. Available online: https://www.oiv.int/ (accessed on 18 November 2024).
  30. Wilhelmy, C.; Pavez, C.; Bordeu, E.; Brossard, N. A Review of Tannin Determination Methods Using Spectrophotometric Detection in Red Wines and Their Ability to Predict Astringency. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2021, 42, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Duke, B.C.; Butzke, C.E. Rapid Determination of Primary Amino Acids in Grape Juice Using an o-Phthaldialdehyde/N-Acetyl-L-Cysteine Spectrophotometric Assay. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1998, 49, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Corso, M.; Vannozzi, A.; Ziliotto, F.; Zouine, M.; Maza, E.; Nicolato, T.; Moser, C. Grapevine Rootstocks Differentially Affect the Rate of Ripening and Modulate Auxin-Related Genes in Cabernet Sauvignon Berries. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. De Oliveira, J.B.; Laureano, O.; de Castro, R.; Pereira, G.E.; Ricardo-Da-Silva, J.M. Rootstock and harvest season affect the chemical composition and sensory analysis of grapes and wines of the Alicante Bouschet (Vitis vinifera L.) grown in a tropical semi-arid climate in Brazil. OENO One 2020, 54, 1021–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Gambetta, G.A.; Manuck, C.M.; Drucker, S.T.; Shaghasi, T.; Fort, K.; Matthews, M.A.; Walker, M.A.; McElrone, A.J. The Relationship between Root Hydraulics and Scion Vigour across Vitis Rootstocks: What Role Do Root Aquaporins Play? J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 6445–6455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lee, J.; Steenwerth, K.L. Rootstock and Vineyard Floor Management Influence on ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Grape Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen (YAN). Food Chem. 2011, 127, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Verdenal, T.; Dienes-Nagy, Á.; Spangenberg, J.E.; Zufferey, V.; Spring, J.-L.; Viret, O.; Marin-Carbonne, J.; van Leeuwen, C. Understanding and Managing Nitrogen Nutrition in Grapevine: A Review. OENO One 2021, 55, 1–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nikolaou, N.; Koukourikou, M.A.; Karagiannidis, N. Effects of Various Rootstocks on Xylem Exudates Cytokinin Content, Nutrient Uptake, and Growth Patterns of Grapevine Vitis vinifera L. cv. Thomson Seedless. Agronomy 2000, 20, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Onetto, C.; McCarthy, J.; Solomon, M.; Borneman, A.R.; Schmidt, S.A. Enhancing Fermentation Performance through the Reutilisation of Wine Yeast Lees. OENO One 2024, 58, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schreiner, R.P.; Scagel, C.F.; Lee, J. N, P, and K Supply to Pinot Noir Grapevines: Impact on Berry Phenolics and Free Amino Acids. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2014, 65, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Merkytė, V.; Longo, E.; Windisch, G.; Boselli, E. Phenolic Compounds as Markers of Wine Quality and Authenticity. Foods 2020, 9, 1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kennedy, J.A.; Ferrier, J.; Harbertson, J.F.; des Gachons, C.P. Analysis of Tannins in Red Wine Using Multiple Methods: Correlation with Perceived Astringency. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2006, 57, 481–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Heller-Fuenzalida, F.; Cuneo, I.F.; Kuhn, N.; Peña-Neira, Á.; Cáceres-Mella, A. Rootstock Effect Influences the Phenolic and Sensory Characteristics of Syrah Grapes and Wines in a Mediterranean Climate. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Feifel, S.; Zimmermann, D.; Schaub, M.; Wegmann-Herr, P.; Richling, E.; Durner, D. Influence of Grape Maturity and Maceration Time on Sensory Characteristics and Phenolics in Pinot Noir and Cabernet-Sauvignon Wines. OENO One 2025, 59, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Medel-Marabolí, M.; López-Solís, R.; Vásquez-Cerda, M.; Seguel-Rubio, E.; Gil-Cortiella, M.; Seguel-Seguel, O.; Obreque-Slier, E. Grapevine Rootstocks Mediate the Effects of Soil Salinity on Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes and Wines. Appl. Food Res. 2025, 5, 101073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Appliedchem 05 00027 g001
Figure 1. Fermentation durations and kinetics of Assyrtiko microvinifications from grapes that derived from the rootstocks: R110 (A), 140Ru (B), 3309C (C), 41B (D), and FERCAL (E).
Figure 1. Fermentation durations and kinetics of Assyrtiko microvinifications from grapes that derived from the rootstocks: R110 (A), 140Ru (B), 3309C (C), 41B (D), and FERCAL (E).
Appliedchem 05 00027 g001
Appliedchem 05 00027 g002
Figure 2. Sensory evaluation regarding color intensity, aroma intensity, and aroma complexity of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Sensory evaluation regarding color intensity, aroma intensity, and aroma complexity of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Appliedchem 05 00027 g002
Appliedchem 05 00027 g003
Figure 3. Sensory evaluation regarding perceived acidity and sweetness of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Sensory evaluation regarding perceived acidity and sweetness of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Appliedchem 05 00027 g003
Appliedchem 05 00027 g004
Figure 4. Sensory evaluation regarding astringency, alcohol, and body (mouthfeel/viscosity) of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Sensory evaluation regarding astringency, alcohol, and body (mouthfeel/viscosity) of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Appliedchem 05 00027 g004
Appliedchem 05 00027 g005
Figure 5. Sensory evaluation regarding balance, aftertaste, and overall quality of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Sensory evaluation regarding balance, aftertaste, and overall quality of Assyrtiko wines from five different rootstocks. Box plots depict the distribution of panel scores on a 1–10 scale with upper and lower quartiles, while the × symbol represents the mean value. The whiskers represent the range of variabilities outside the quartiles. Outliers are plotted as individual points. Different lowercase letters denote statistically significant differences among rootstocks for each parameter (p < 0.05).
Appliedchem 05 00027 g005
Table 1. Must composition of Assyrtiko grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
Table 1. Must composition of Assyrtiko grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
Rootstock°BaumeDensity
(g/L)		Titratable Acidity
(g/L)		pH
R11012.5 ± 0.0 c1.0925 ± 0.02 b4.70 ± 0.1 ab4.25 ± 0.00 a
140Ru11.7 ± 0.0 d1.0866 ± 0.01 c4,88 ± 0.1 a4.13 ± 0.01 b
3309C12.4 ± 0.0 c1.0927 ± 0.02 b4.48 ± 0.1 b4.07 ± 0.00 c
41B12.6 ± 0.0 b1.0955 ± 0.01 a4.93 ± 0.2 a4.01 ± 0.01 d
FERCAL12.8 ± 0.0 a1.0950 ± 0.01 a4.90 ± 0.0 a4.07 ± 0.01 c
p-value˂0.00001˂0.000010.0089˂0.00001
Table 2. Nitrogen grape juice status of Assyrtiko grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
Table 2. Nitrogen grape juice status of Assyrtiko grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
Rootstockα-Amino Nitrogen (FAN) (mg/L)Ammoniacal N (NH4+) (mg/L)YAN (FAN + NH4+) (mg/L)
R110128.1 ± 0.7 a98.7 ± 0.3 a226.80 ± 0.99 a
140Ru65.3 ± 0.9 b67.3 ± 0.4 d132.60 ± 0.46 c
3309C76.19 ± 10.0 b75.8 ± 2.9 c151.99 ± 12.87 bc
41B77.5 ± 8.9 b90.7 ± 0.3 b122.20 ± 8.66 bc
FERCAL88.78 ± 8.53 b89.9 ± 1.1 b178.68 ± 9.63 b
p-value0.0009˂0.000010.0001
Table 3. Enological analyses of Assyrtiko wines from plants grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
Table 3. Enological analyses of Assyrtiko wines from plants grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
RootstockDensity
(g/L)		Titratable Acidity (g/L)pHVolatile Acidity (g/L)Alcohol
(%vol)		Reducing Sugars (g/L)Total Tannins (g/L)
R1100.9896 ± 0.01 b3.93 ± 0.1 c4.20 ± 0.00 a0.27 ± 0.01 c12.8 ± 0.0 b1.2 ± 0.0 abc0.375 ± 0.00 a
140Ru0.9951 ± 0.01 a5.23 ± 0.1 a3.80 ± 0.00 e0.98 ± 0.00 a10.2 ± 0.1 c1.3 ± 0.1 ab0.208 ± 0.00 c
3309C0.9883 ± 0.01 c3.45 ± 0.1 c3.90 ± 0.00 d0.31 ± 0.01 b12.7 ± 0.1 b1.4 ± 0.1 a0.292 ± 0.00 b
41B0.9893 ± 0.02 b4.68 ± 0.2 ab3.97 ± 0.00 b0.23 ± 0.00 d12.9 ± 0.0 ab1.1 ± 0.0 bc0.167 ± 0.00 d
FERCAL0.9883 ± 0.00 c4.55 ± 0.1 b3.95 ± 0.00 c0.20 ± 0.01 e13.1 ± 0.1 a1.0 ± 0.1 c0.220 ± 0.02 c
p-values˂0.00001˂0.00001˂0.00001˂0.00001˂0.000010.0087˂0.00001
Table 4. Nitrogen status of wines from Assyrtiko grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
Table 4. Nitrogen status of wines from Assyrtiko grafted onto five different rootstocks. Each value represents mean ± SE. Different letters within the same column indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) among rootstocks.
Rootstockα-Amino Nitrogen (FAN) (mg/L) Ammoniacal N (NH4+) (mg/L)YAN (FAN + NH4+) (mg/L)
R110 57.73 ± 0.37 a4.94 ± 0.16 a62.67 ± 0.53 a
140Ru41.09 ± 5.54 b2.51 ± 0.23 c43.60 ± 5.31 b
3309C32.73 ± 2.43 bc3.79 ± 0.21 b36.52 ± 2.21 bc
41B27.07 ± 3.86 bc3.62 ± 0.10 b30.69 ± 3.94 bc
FERCAL18.25 ± 0.83 c4.76 ± 0.01 a23.02 ± 0.83 c
p-value0.00007˂0.000010.00005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Beris, E.; Psarros, M.; Konstantakopoulou, V.; Evangelou, A.; Banilas, G.; Korkas, E. Grapevine Rootstock Genotype Influences Nitrogen Levels, Must and Wine Composition, and Sensory Characteristics of Assyrtiko (Vitis vinifera L.). AppliedChem 2025, 5, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/appliedchem5040027

AMA Style

Beris E, Psarros M, Konstantakopoulou V, Evangelou A, Banilas G, Korkas E. Grapevine Rootstock Genotype Influences Nitrogen Levels, Must and Wine Composition, and Sensory Characteristics of Assyrtiko (Vitis vinifera L.). AppliedChem. 2025; 5(4):27. https://doi.org/10.3390/appliedchem5040027

Chicago/Turabian Style

Beris, Evangelos, Markos Psarros, Vasiliki Konstantakopoulou, Alexandra Evangelou, Georgios Banilas, and Elias Korkas. 2025. "Grapevine Rootstock Genotype Influences Nitrogen Levels, Must and Wine Composition, and Sensory Characteristics of Assyrtiko (Vitis vinifera L.)" AppliedChem 5, no. 4: 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/appliedchem5040027

APA Style

Beris, E., Psarros, M., Konstantakopoulou, V., Evangelou, A., Banilas, G., & Korkas, E. (2025). Grapevine Rootstock Genotype Influences Nitrogen Levels, Must and Wine Composition, and Sensory Characteristics of Assyrtiko (Vitis vinifera L.). AppliedChem, 5(4), 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/appliedchem5040027

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop