Background and Aims: Under a surge of interest in the dual use of land, very scant information is still available about physiological and agronomical adaptations of the grapevine grown under agrivoltaics (AV) panels and their compatibility with light energy capture. Methods and Results: A setup of permanently horizontal AV panels mounted from veraison until harvest over Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) and Malvasia di Candia aromatica (MC) row sections was compared with an open‐field (OF) row section of the same cultivars. Uninterrupted diurnal and seasonal whole‐canopy gas exchange measurements were taken from August 9 to September 29. In contrast, total light interception, leaf gas exchange and water status, cluster temperature, and photochemical quantum yield of photosystem II (φPSII) readings were concentrated on August 13–14. Vegetative growth, yield components, ripening dynamics, grape and wine composition, and volatile and bound aromas were performed. Based on diurnal and seasonal direct and diffuse light measurements, panels cut incoming light by about 47%. In contrast, the reduction of the whole‐canopy net carbon exchange rate (NCER) and transpiration (T) was only 7%–9%. Canopy water use efficiency (WUE) was not significantly affected, although, in CS, WUE lowered when panels cast maximum shade over the central part of the day. With yield components not being affected, under AV, harvest was delayed by 17 and 12 days versus OF in CS and MC, respectively. However, while technological maturity was comparable in MC under OF and AV, the latter had lower monoterpenes and fermentative esters, which might hint at less floral and fruity notes. The rainy late season compromised grape maturity on the CS–AV vines, and the final wines were lighter in color and body. Conclusions: Under the specific panel’s configuration, the whole‐canopy gas exchange was minimally affected in front of a 47% light depletion. Panels caused a consistent ripening delay that was detrimental to free‐volatile wine components in MC. In contrast, it worsened grape and wine quality in CS primarily due to unfavorable late‐season weather.

Berry dehydration and sunburn are growing concerns for wine grapes cultivated in warm climates. An underexplored method to address this is localized water nebulization at the cluster level for cooling. In 2024, a trial was conducted on Sauvignon blanc (SB) and Barbera rows in Northern Italy, comparing two factors at two levels each: uncooled control (C) versus cooled vines (CL), and non-defoliated (ND) versus defoliated vines (D). Basal defoliation was performed at veraison, while automated cooling was implemented using one fogger per vine, positioned about 10 cm above the cordon, and activated when the air temperature exceeded 33 °C and relative humidity was below 55%. The foggers had a flow rate of 11.2 L/h, with intermittent cooling cycles of 1 min off and 2 min on. Throughout the season, leaf gas exchange, water status, surface cluster temperature, yield components, and grape composition at harvest were measured in both varieties. Out of 51 potential activation days, the system operated on 44 days (86.3%), delivering a total of 145 mm and 183 mm in Sauvignon blanc and Barbera, respectively. The maximum cooling effect on clusters, ranging from − 6 to − 9 °C, was observed when comparing the C-D (warmest) and CL-ND (coolest) treatments, with cooling efficiency unaffected by the presence or absence of basal leaves. Both cooling and maintaining leaf cover effectively reduced cluster sunburn. In Sauvignon blanc, leaf gas exchange and water status were minimally impacted, whereas in Barbera, cooling significantly enhanced leaf function during summer. In Barbera, while ND vines exhibited enhanced sugar and color accumulation at harvest compared to D vines, the CL vines had lower total anthocyanins and phenolics at harvest than C vines, regardless of their unit of expression. This supports the hypothesis that the significant decrease in surface cluster temperature achieved by cooling might not suffice to improve berry pigmentation if berry skin wetting is prolonged, and as a result of an apparent VPD drop, berry transpiration and ripening may be delayed.

Purpose: A three-year study was carried out in a steep vineyard to study inter-annual and within-season vigor variability by proximal sensing. Methods: Each season, vigor maps were obtained around veraison when a full canopy status was achieved; in 2021 and 2022, within-season vigor variability was assessed at 9 and 8 dates. Every year, main yield components, grape composition and pruning weight were determined. In 2022, dynamic in vegetative growth, canopy density, leaf gas exchange and water status, soil temperature and water status were also performed. Results: Mostly due to more rapid soil warming, vines growing in low vigor (LV) plots had fostered leaf area development and shoot growth over the first three dates of measurements before high vigor (HV) fully made up at pre-flowering. From flowering onward, vine growth in LV was totally checked and the gap versus the HV kept widening. Over summer, in LV, leaf water potential assessed pre-dawn and midday reached the quite limiting thresholds of −0.6 and −1.4 MPa, whereas in HV water stress was rather moderate. Gas exchange limitations in LV essentially mirrored the above with stomatal conductance decreased to 0.03 mmol m ⁻² s ⁻¹ at pre-veraison. Final vine size and yield were severely curtailed in LV (−49% and −62% as compared to HV, respectively) which, on the other hand, achieved much better and complete grape maturity. Conclusion: This trial confirms that even within a tiny and steep vineyard, spatial variability between vigor zones evaluated at full canopy tends to be maintained over years, thus justifying, for instance, a selective harvesting approach. However, it is quite meaningful that, in both 2021 and 2022, the ultimately defined LV vigor initially developed bigger canopy, balanced with HV at pre-flowering and then re-entered in their standard classification of “low vigor” plots. This behavior is relevant anytime a variable management strategy is planned. Indeed, early season fertilization should be adjusted with a logic opposite to that applicable to a “low vigor” level while, real-time canopy spray is recommended.

Over a span of two years, a study on Barbera explored the interactive effects of localized cluster nebulization compared to uncooled vines, alongside the presence or absence of late basal leaf removal, using a full factorial design. In this design, basal leaf removal was implemented in both cooled and uncooled vines. The cooling system employed foggers that delivered a water flow of 11.2 L/h, automatically activating when air temperature exceeded 33 °C and relative humidity dropped below 55%. Throughout both seasons, assessments were made on leaf gas exchange, water status, yield components, and grape composition at harvest. In 2025, additional measurements included cluster temperature, soil water potential, and the evaluation of nebulized water dripping onto the soil. While the presence or absence of basal leaf removal had a minor effect on the gas exchange of the immediately upper leaves, leaf function was positively influenced by cooling in both seasons. In 2025, a direct correlation between cooling and non-limiting pre-dawn water potential was established. On average, the presence of basal leaves around the cluster reduced their temperature by 3–4 °C, while nebulization achieved up to 12 °C of cluster cooling. Late basal defoliation had minimal impact on must composition. Conversely, cooling did not affect yield per vine but resulted in higher malic acid at harvest and significantly reduced the concentration and content of total anthocyanins and phenolics compared to uncooled vines. In the absence of cooling, maintaining leaves around the cluster is crucial for controlling sunburn. This study highlights two main and novel findings: (i) the impact on final grape composition can vary depending on how cluster cooling is achieved (e.g., through simple shading or berry wetting), particularly concerning berry pigmentation; (ii) under the chosen activation conditions, under the row soil management and weather and soil characteristics, the irrigation system effectively serves a dual function: providing the expected cooling and enhancing soil moisture with consequent benefits for leaf physiology.