1 Introduction

Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) is among the most important fruit crops worldwide, underpinning global wine, table grape, raisin, and juice industries and contributing substantially to rural livelihoods, export earnings, and cultural heritage in many regions (Pertot et al., 2017). Viticulture occupies millions of hectares and supports a high‑value value chain from production through processing and tourism, making stable yields and consistent quality a strategic economic objective (Van Leeuwen et al., 2024). However, the crop is highly susceptible to a broad spectrum of pathogens and pests—fungi, oomycetes, bacteria, viruses, nematodes, and insects—that damage leaves, shoots, and clusters, with direct consequences for yield, fruit composition, and marketability (Gawande and Sherekar, 2024). Downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola), powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator), Botrytis cinerea gray mold, trunk diseases, and various insect pests remain the major phytosanitary constraints in most viticultural regions and can require numerous interventions each season to maintain quantitative and qualitative standards (Bois et al., 2017; Van Leeuwen et al., 2024). As a result, pest and disease management is central to sustaining the productivity, profitability, and international competitiveness of grape industries.

Modern grape cultivation’s heavy reliance on synthetic pesticides has created a series of agronomic, environmental, and social problems. In many regions, fungicides account for the majority of pesticide use in vineyards, and under high disease pressure, 12-15 spray applications are typically required during a single growing season, with the number sometimes reaching 25-30 (Mwaka et al., 2024). Intensive or improper pesticide use has been shown to result in toxic residues in grapes, juice, and wine, while also causing soil and water contamination and negatively affecting biodiversity and human health (Alimzhanova et al., 2025; Liviz et al., 2025). The excessive use of single-site fungicides and insecticides has accelerated the evolution of resistance in key pathogens such as P. viticola and other fungal pests, thereby increasing the difficulty of control and threatening the long-term effectiveness of existing active ingredients (Toffolatti et al., 2024). Climate change is also altering the distribution patterns and pressure of pests and diseases. Diseases such as downy mildew have become major threats under a wide range of climatic conditions, and even greater challenges are expected by the middle of this century (Bois et al., 2017; Van Leeuwen et al., 2024).

Integrated pest management (IPM) has gradually become the central concept in grape protection. Its goal is to integrate agronomic practices, biological control, genetic improvement, and chemical measures in order to keep pest and disease pressure below economic thresholds while minimizing pesticide inputs and their associated risks (Mwaka et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024). At present, vineyard IPM systems incorporate a wide range of strategies, including agronomic management such as canopy management, pruning, and vineyard sanitation; the use of disease-resistant cultivars; biological control agents and plant-derived products; pheromone disruption; spray decision-support systems; as well as precision agriculture and robotic technologies ( Aher et al., 2025). Resistant and tolerant cultivars, together with emerging breeding and genomic technologies such as marker-assisted selection and gene editing, provide important pathways for reducing fungicide use—by up to 80% in some cases—and for developing durable resistance (Trapp and Töpfer, 2023; Rahman et al., 2024; Gan et al., 2025). The development of organic, plant-derived, and microbe-derived control technologies has also shown potential for reducing pesticide dependence, improving soil health, and supporting organic or low-input production systems, although their formulation stability and field performance still require further optimization (Alimzhanova et al., 2025). Despite the growing range of available technologies, their adoption remains uneven, and many growers still rely on calendar-based chemical control programs, with insufficient awareness of alternative approaches or problems such as grapevine trunk diseases.

This study aims to systematically review the current status and development trends of integrated pest and disease management technologies in grape production, with a particular focus on their role in balancing yield, quality, environmental sustainability, and food safety. By integrating multidimensional perspectives from agronomy, ecology, technology, and socioeconomics, this research seeks to establish a comprehensive framework that can provide guidance for growers, technical advisors, researchers, and policymakers, thereby supporting the implementation of more resilient and resource-efficient IPM strategies across diverse grape-growing regions.

2 Major Pests and Diseases in Grapevine

2.1 Common fungal and bacterial diseases

The most destructive fungal diseases in grape production mainly include downy mildew, powdery mildew, and gray mold. Downy mildew, caused by Plasmopara viticola, spreads readily under humid conditions and can infect leaves, young shoots, inflorescences, and grape clusters, leading to early defoliation and significant yield loss in severe cases (Capriotti et al., 2020; Koledenkova et al., 2022). Powdery mildew, caused by Erysiphe necator, can infect green tissues and berries even under relatively dry conditions, weakening photosynthesis and affecting fruit composition and wine flavor (Capriotti et al., 2020). Gray mold, caused by Botrytis cinerea, mainly damages flowers and ripening fruits, resulting in postharvest decay and quality deterioration (Rienth et al., 2021).

Among bacterial diseases, crown gall is the most important in grapevine and is mainly caused by Allorhizobium vitis, although it can also be induced by tumorigenic Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The pathogen transfers tumor-inducing DNA into host cells, causing galls to form on trunks, rootstocks, and graft unions, thereby disrupting vascular tissues, weakening vine vigor, and shortening plant lifespan. The disease is especially severe in young vineyards and in regions frequently affected by frost injury (Faist et al., 2016; Habbadi et al., 2023). Its management is particularly difficult because the pathogen can persist for long periods in both plant tissues and soil, while conventional chemical treatments have limited effectiveness. At present, the most effective measures still include the use of disease-free planting material, reduction of mechanical injuries and frost damage, selection of tolerant rootstocks, and biological control using non-tumorigenic Agrobacterium strains and antagonistic endophytes (Asghari et al., 2019; Etminani et al., 2024). In recent years, studies on the characteristic microbial communities associated with galls have also provided new ideas for crown gall diagnosis and microbiome-based control strategies (Nguyen-Huu et al., 2025).

2.2 Insect pests affecting grapevine

Grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) is one of the most representative pests in grape production. Native to North America, it primarily attacks the roots, forming galls on fine roots and nodose roots, which interfere with water and nutrient uptake and can also promote secondary infection by soil-borne pathogens. In severe cases, it may cause vine decline or even death (Yin et al., 2019). The phylloxera crisis in the nineteenth century devastated European vineyards and led to the adoption of resistant rootstocks as a core control strategy in grape production worldwide. However, because this pest has high genetic diversity and strong host adaptability, outbreaks may still recur when rootstock selection is inappropriate or when local biotypes overcome existing resistance.

Another important group of pests includes leafhoppers and other sap-sucking insects. These pests feed directly on xylem or leaf sap, weakening vine growth, and they also transmit several serious diseases, such as phytoplasmas associated with Flavescence dorée and Xylella fastidiosa, the causal agent of Pierce’s disease (Reineke and Thiéry, 2016; Lessio and Alma, 2021). Because pathogen transmission is highly efficient and effective treatment is lacking once infection occurs, the economic losses caused by these pests are often greater than those caused by feeding damage alone. In practice, integrated control usually requires a combination of pest monitoring, phenological analysis, and agronomic, chemical, and biological measures.

Tortricid moths, leaf-feeding beetles, and other chewing pests also damage grape inflorescences, clusters, and leaves. Tortricid larvae can feed directly on fruit and create entry points for pathogens such as Botrytis cinerea, thereby further aggravating bunch rot and quality deterioration (Lessio and Alma, 2021; Alimzhanova et al., 2025). Leaf-feeding pests reduce effective leaf area by damaging leaves and young shoots, which in turn affects vine growth and fruit ripening (Singh and Acevedo, 2023). Current vineyard pest management places greater emphasis on integrated control, combining the use of plant defense traits with the conservation of natural enemies and habitat management to improve the stability of IPM systems (Singh and Acevedo, 2023).

2.3 Emerging and region-specific threats

Climate change is continuously reshaping the pattern of grape pest and disease occurrence. Rising temperatures, longer growing seasons, and more frequent extreme weather events can accelerate insect development, increase the number of generations per year, and drive the expansion of grape berry moths, mealybugs, leafhoppers, and other pests toward higher latitudes and elevations (Reineke and Thiéry, 2016). At the same time, downy mildew and powdery mildew are highly sensitive to temperature changes, and in many grape-producing regions, their epidemic risk may persist or even intensify in the future (Rienth et al., 2021; Koledenkova et al., 2022). Changes in climatic conditions may also promote the expansion of virus–insect transmission systems, further increasing the incidence of viral diseases such as leafroll disease, fanleaf disease, and red blotch disease. These changes interact with regional differences in soil conditions, grape varieties, and management practices, creating marked geographic variation, and are often accompanied by the spread of invasive alien species.

With the acceleration of global trade in propagation materials and agricultural commodities, invasive vector insects such as leafhoppers and sharpshooters capable of transmitting Xylella fastidiosa and phytoplasmas are continually entering new production regions. Once established, these invasive species can rapidly create new epidemiological systems. For example, the spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter in California has been closely associated with outbreaks of Pierce’s disease in grapevines and other host crops (Reineke and Thiéry, 2016; Lessio and Alma, 2021). Similarly, differences in the damage caused by various phylloxera biotypes and by crown gall across regions also indicate that local climate and cultivation conditions can profoundly influence the epidemiological consequences of grape pests and diseases (Yin et al., 2019; Habbadi et al., 2023).

3 Conventional Control Methods in Grapevine Protection

3.1 Chemical control strategies

In grape production, chemical control has long been the core strategy for managing pests and diseases, particularly in the control of downy mildew, powdery mildew, and major insect pests. Commonly used fungicides include protective compounds such as copper- and sulfur-based products, as well as systemic or translaminar fungicides such as strobilurins, triazoles, and SDHI fungicides, which are typically applied at fixed intervals throughout the growing season (Pennington et al., 2018; Moine et al., 2023). Insect control is generally implemented when pest populations exceed economic thresholds, using organophosphates, neonicotinoids, pyrethroids, and some newer selective insecticides to manage key pests such as grape moths and disease-transmitting leafhoppers (Mwaka et al., 2024; Pavan et al., 2026). Under intensive cultivation systems, multiple pesticide applications are required within a single growing season to maintain yield and fruit quality.

However, frequent and preventive chemical applications also bring several problems. First, the risk of resistance development increases. After long-term repeated use, single-site fungicides have already selected for resistant populations in pathogens causing downy mildew and powdery mildew, as well as in some insect pests, thereby reducing the effectiveness of these chemicals (Toffolatti et al., 2024; Kaya et al., 2025). Second, pesticide residue issues have attracted increasing attention. Residues not only affect the food safety of grapes, grape juice, and wine, but may also impact non-target organisms and fermentation-related microbial communities, thereby indirectly influencing wine quality (Liviz et al., 2025).

3.2 Cultural and agronomic practices

Agronomic and cultivation management constitute an important foundation of traditional grape protection systems. Their main purpose is to reduce primary inoculum sources and suppress the occurrence of diseases and pests by improving the vineyard microclimate. Pruning, shoot training, and canopy management can improve air circulation and light penetration, thereby reducing canopy humidity and limiting the development of diseases such as downy mildew, powdery mildew, and gray mold (Testempasis et al., 2023). At the same time, the timely removal of infected branches, mummified clusters, and weed hosts within the vineyard can effectively reduce overwintering pathogens and the sources of primary infection in the following growing season. In recent years, the concept of “proper pruning” has also emphasized minimizing large wounds and protecting sap flow pathways in order to maintain the long-term health of the vine (Mondello et al., 2017).

Soil, water, and nutrient management also directly affect grape resistance and disease pressure. Cover crops, green manure, and soil surface management can improve soil structure, enhance water infiltration, and increase soil microbial diversity, thereby strengthening plant stress resistance (Perria et al., 2022). In contrast, excessive nitrogen application can lead to excessive vegetative growth and dense canopies, increasing vineyard humidity and consequently aggravating fungal diseases and the risk of cluster rot (Pavan et al., 2026). In addition, proper irrigation, timely water regulation, and practices such as leaf removal and fruit thinning can help reduce cluster rot and the probability of pathogen colonization, thereby improving the overall effectiveness of disease control (Testempasis et al., 2023).

3.3 Physical and mechanical control

Physical and mechanical methods provide additional, often pesticide-free, tools for managing grapevine pests and can be readily integrated into conventional programs. Traps, particularly pheromone traps, are widely used for monitoring grape moth flights and can guide the timing of insecticide applications, thereby reducing unnecessary sprays (Pennington et al., 2018). In some settings, mass trapping or attract-and-kill devices contribute to direct suppression of pest populations, although these techniques are generally more effective when pest pressure is moderate and landscapes are relatively isolated (Pertot et al., 2017; Pavan et al., 2026). Physical barriers such as insect-proof nets or inter-row ground covers can prevent some insects from entering the canopy, but large-scale structural modification of vineyards is often limited by economic costs and landscape conservation requirements, especially in traditional European wine-growing regions (Pertot et al., 2017). In addition, the manual removal of infested clusters, diseased leaves, or severely infected young shoots is still practiced in high-value or small-scale vineyards to reduce local pest and disease sources and to improve spray penetration and canopy ventilation (Testempasis et al., 2023). 

Environmental modifications for pest suppression, beyond standard canopy and irrigation management, include targeted manipulation of microclimate and habitat at the vineyard scale. Practices such as strategic defoliation and bunch thinning at specific phenological stages have been shown to reduce the incidence of bunch rots and mycotoxin-producing fungi by decreasing humidity around clusters and altering the composition of the berry-associated microbiota (Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al., 2021; Testempasis et al., 2023). Landscape-level decisions—choice of vineyard site, row orientation, training system, and surrounding vegetation—also influence pest and vector populations, their movement into vineyards, and the effectiveness of natural enemies (Pavan et al., 2026).

4 Biological Control and Eco-friendly Approaches in Grapevine Management

4.1 Microbial control agents

Microbial biocontrol agents have become an important component of green disease management in grape production and have shown strong potential against downy mildew, powdery mildew, gray mold, and bunch rot. Commonly effective microorganisms include Trichoderma, Bacillus, Aureobasidium pullulans, and Pseudomonas, all of which can reduce disease incidence under field conditions. Some studies have reported control efficacies of 60%-90% (Thiéry et al., 2018; Alimzhanova et al., 2025). Yeasts and microbial consortia also show advantages in suppressing gray mold and improving fruit quality, and they have demonstrated good control effects against trunk diseases such as Botryosphaeria dieback during the nursery stage (Leal et al., 2022; Mesguida et al., 2023).

These microorganisms act through multiple mechanisms, including competition for nutrients and space, secretion of antimicrobial compounds and degradative enzymes, parasitism of pathogen structures, and competition for key elements through siderophore production, thereby directly inhibiting pathogen growth (Compant et al., 2013). Some strains can also induce systemic resistance (ISR) in plants, activate defense-related signaling pathways, and enhance the overall resistance of grapevines to multiple diseases. As reported by Lakkis et al. (2019), using the grapevine cultivars Pinot Noir and Solaris as study materials, the differential mechanisms of resistance induced by the beneficial rhizobacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens PTA-CT2 were investigated. The results showed that this bacterium could enhance the plant’s own defense capacity through a “priming” effect. Against downy mildew, it mainly activated the SA-related signaling pathway and induced a more pronounced hypersensitive response (HR) in Solaris. Against gray mold, however, resistance relied more on JA/ET signaling and was associated with suppression of excessive cell death (Figure 1). Although microbial biocontrol agents have clear advantages such as environmental friendliness, their efficacy still varies across regions and years, and there is still room for improvement in formulation stability and environmental adaptability.

Figure 1 Pseudomonas fluorescens PTA-CT2 induces systemic resistance against Botrytis cinerea in Pinot noir and Solaris cultivars. Plants were treated at the root level with P. fluorescens at 107 CFU g-1 of soil. Two weeks later, leaf disks were collected from the upper third and fourth leaves and inoculated with 5 μl of 106 conidia ml-1 of B. cinerea. Necrotic lesion area was measured at 7 dpi with Compu Eye, Leaf & Symptom Area software (A, B). Panels C and D show representative disease symptoms on control and PTA-CT2-treated leaf disks at 7 dpi. Bars = 4 mm. Disease index (E, F) shows the proportion of leaf disks in symptom classes ranging from no visible symptom to lesions larger than 40 mm2. Data are means from three independent experiments with 30 leaves per condition in 2016 (A, C, E) and 2017 (B, D, F); error bars indicate standard deviation. Different letters indicate significant differences among treatments (ANOVA Tukey test, P < 0.05) (Adopted from Lakkis et al., 2019)

4.2 Natural enemies and biological regulation

Natural enemy regulation is a key component of ecological pest management in vineyards and plays an important role in suppressing pests such as grape moths, leafhoppers, and mealybugs. Vineyards host diverse communities of predators and parasitoids, including hymenopteran parasitoids attacking grape moths, lacewings such as Chrysoperla externa, spiders, predatory mites, and vertebrates such as insectivorous birds and bats. Under appropriate management conditions, these natural enemies can reduce pest populations and crop damage (Thiéry et al., 2018; Korányi et al., 2025). Studies on grape moth control have shown that parasitoids and predators can exert strong suppression at the local scale, although their effectiveness depends on specific ecological conditions and remains underutilized compared with chemical control and pheromone disruption techniques.

Recent field exclusion experiments have demonstrated that birds and bats can reduce leaf-feeding damage and injury caused by Lobesia botrana. In landscapes connected to forests, bat activity is more frequent and is closely associated with reduced moth populations and increased yields (Korányi et al., 2025). For grape mealybugs, refuge plant studies conducted in Peru have shown that planting flowering species to attract beneficial arthropods such as Chrysoperla externa can effectively enhance the natural regulation of Planococcus pests (Cocco et al., 2020).

The key to conservation biological control lies in optimizing habitat management. Maintaining inter-row vegetation, alternating mowing, and establishing flowering strips can provide food resources and shelter for parasitoids, lacewings, and spiders, thereby increasing their populations and pest control capacity (Cargnus et al., 2024). At the same time, surrounding forests and semi-natural habitats help attract birds and bats, strengthening predation pressure on pests such as grape moths (Korányi et al., 2025). However, intensive pesticide use can weaken the effects of natural enemies. Therefore, within an IPM framework, pesticide reduction, vegetation management, and habitat optimization should be integrated to achieve more stable biological regulation (Tortosa et al., 2025). 

4.3 Botanical and biopesticides

Plant-derived products, including plant extracts and essential oils, are increasingly becoming important tools in the green management of grape diseases and are considered viable alternatives to some synthetic fungicides. Studies have shown that essential oils from thyme, rosemary, eucalyptus, lavender, and cinnamon can inhibit the growth of key grape pathogens, and when combined with reduced doses of copper-based products under field conditions, they can effectively reduce disease incidence (Kenfaoui et al., 2023; Alimzhanova et al., 2025). Among them, some essential oils can achieve inhibition rates exceeding 80% against pathogens associated with grapevine trunk diseases, and their control efficacy in woody tissues may even exceed 90%, indicating strong potential for managing trunk diseases, downy mildew, powdery mildew, and bunch rot (Kenfaoui et al., 2023). These products offer advantages such as biodegradability, low residue levels, and suitability for organic production systems, although their effectiveness is still influenced by pathogen type, the composition of active compounds, and environmental conditions.

Current developments in biopesticides are no longer limited to crude plant extracts but are gradually shifting toward more stable formulations and resistance-inducing products. Chitosan is a representative example, as it not only exhibits direct antimicrobial activity but also induces immune responses in grapevines, showing good control efficacy against downy mildew and powdery mildew (Brulé et al., 2024). Overall, although plant-derived and microbe-derived products have clear advantages in terms of environmental safety and pesticide reduction, they still face challenges such as limited stability, relatively short persistence, and variable field performance. Future efforts should focus on improving formulation technologies, developing combined products, and integrating them with precision application and decision-support systems to further enhance their role in integrated grape protection systems (Thiéry et al., 2018; Hajji-Hedfi et al., 2025).

5 Integrated Pest and Disease Management (IPM) Strategies in Grapevine

5.1 Principles and framework of IPM

In grape production, IPM is regarded as a systematic management framework whose core aim is to integrate agronomic, biological, physical, and chemical measures in order to keep pests and diseases below economically damaging levels while minimizing risks to human health and the environment (Zhou et al., 2024). Its basic principle is to prioritize prevention through rational vineyard design and cultivation management, rely on natural regulation and biological control, and use pesticides selectively only when necessary as a last resort (Pavan et al., 2026). Modern grape IPM emphasizes replacing and reducing the use of synthetic pesticides through resistant or tolerant cultivars, biological control, mating disruption, and optimized agronomic practices such as canopy management, ground cover, and vineyard sanitation, while establishing an integrated management system at both vineyard and landscape scales (Pertot et al., 2017; Wilson and Daane, 2017). This multilevel integration is dynamic and regionally adaptable, allowing growers to gradually introduce new technologies and move from low-input IPM toward highly bio-intensive IPM systems (Barzman et al., 2015; Deguine et al., 2021).

One of the central pillars of this framework is threshold-based decision-making, meaning that control measures are implemented only when pest or disease levels, or predicted risks, exceed economic and agronomic thresholds (Lessio and Alma, 2021; Bashyal et al., 2022). Economic thresholds are determined by combining pest density, infection risk, crop growth stage, and expected yield loss, and are increasingly being incorporated into decision support systems (DSS) and predictive models (Román et al., 2021; Bregaglio et al., 2022). The European Union’s eight IPM principles explicitly require monitoring, the use of warning systems, and the prioritization of non-chemical control measures, thereby translating the threshold concept into practical standards at the institutional level. In grape production, these thresholds are usually combined with field observations and model outputs, such as downy mildew risk levels and pest phenology models, to help growers move away from fixed-calendar spray programs and adopt risk-based precision management strategies that balance control efficacy with environmental impact (Figure 2).

Figure 2  IPM decision flowchart based on economic thresholds

5.2 Monitoring and early warning systems

Field surveys remain the foundation of grape IPM, as they provide direct information for assessing pest and disease occurrence, crop growth stages, and the activity of natural enemies. Through standardized and regular monitoring—including sampling surveys of insects and mites as well as standardized disease assessment methods—it is possible to accurately determine pest and disease status and provide a basis for threshold application and DSS-based decision-making (Lessio and Alma, 2021; Bashyal et al., 2022). For leafhoppers, grape moths, and vector insects that transmit yellows diseases or Pierce’s disease, monitoring usually combines trap surveillance with visual inspection of leaves and clusters, supported by predictive models to analyze their population dynamics (Pavan et al., 2026). In many IPM systems, plant protection services or grower organizations establish regional monitoring networks to integrate data from multiple farms and issue risk warnings and management recommendations, thereby enabling area-wide coordinated control and reducing unnecessary pesticide applications.

In recent years, monitoring technologies have evolved into warning systems that integrate field surveys, model analysis, and digital platforms. For example, in the management of grape downy mildew, the MISFITS system developed in Italy combines meteorological data, infection process models, grape phenology simulation, and machine-learning classification algorithms to divide infection risk into five levels, thereby achieving high-precision forecasting and guiding regional spray decisions (Bregaglio et al., 2022). In pest management, phenology and population dynamics models for grape moths, leafhoppers, mealybugs, and vector insects are also being progressively incorporated into DSS platforms to predict key developmental stages and outbreak risks (Lessio and Alma, 2021). These systems translate complex epidemiological and entomological knowledge into practical decision rules, enabling growers to identify risk windows in advance, optimize spray timing, and, when conditions permit, reduce or even omit control measures (Pertot et al., 2017; Román et al., 2021). 

5.3 Integration of control technologies

In practical production, grape IPM relies on the coordinated application of multiple technologies rather than the isolated use of a single measure. Studies have shown that chemical pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides) remain important components, but their use can be reduced by integrating biological control, mating disruption, resistant cultivars, as well as agronomic and physical measures (Zhou et al., 2024; Pavan et al., 2026). Cultivation practices—such as the selection of cultivars and rootstocks, training systems, pruning, fertilization, and irrigation—have a decisive influence on pest populations and disease pressure, and can simultaneously affect multiple pests and pathogens (Wilson and Daane, 2017). Biological control agents and organically compatible products are increasingly combined with reduced chemical inputs to form hybrid strategies that balance efficacy and environmental safety (Pertot et al., 2017; Alimzhanova et al., 2025). For example, combining reduced fungicide use with resistance-inducing biostimulants or biocontrol agents can maintain control efficacy close to conventional programs while improving sustainability indicators (Valleggi et al., 2023).

Within these integrated strategies, optimizing the timing and method of application is particularly important. For instance, the DOSA3D system adjusts pesticide dosage according to canopy structure and target pests or diseases, achieving up to approximately 60% reduction in pesticide use by matching leaf area index and spray efficiency without compromising crop health (Román et al., 2021). The application of robotics and sensor technologies further enhances precision: modular robots equipped with multispectral imaging can identify powdery mildew lesions and spray only infected areas, reducing pesticide use by 65%-85% compared with conventional uniform spraying (Oberti et al., 2016). In addition, predictive DSS systems allow growers to concentrate control measures during high-risk periods and reduce or avoid spraying during low-risk periods, aligning interventions more closely with pathogen biology and host susceptibility (Pertot et al., 2017).

With the development of AIoT and computer vision technologies, real-time monitoring systems for diseases and vectors are gradually being applied in practice. These technologies are expected to further optimize the timing of interventions and enable data-driven, site-specific management, promoting grape IPM toward greater precision and intelligence while maintaining stable and efficient protection with reduced chemical inputs (Checola et al., 2024).

6 Case Studies of Grapevine IPM Applications

6.1 IPM implementation in European vineyards

In European viticulture, large-scale projects and regional practices have demonstrated that integrated pest management strategies can reduce pesticide use without compromising yield. The European PURE project showed that, in grape production, some application programs based on synthetic fungicides and insecticides can be partly replaced by biological control agents, mating disruption techniques, and decision support systems (DSS) that optimize spray timing, thereby reducing the overall number of applications (Pertot et al., 2017). At the same time, IPM frameworks in European vineyards emphasize that intervention decisions should be based on monitoring data and economic thresholds, with agronomic management and biological control prioritized, while synthetic pesticides are retained as a last resort, thus effectively limiting chemical inputs (Figure 3) (Galli et al., 2024). In addition, landscape-scale management strategies, such as the conservation or restoration of semi-natural habitats, can enhance the role of natural enemies in pest suppression and reduce dependence on insecticides, particularly in the control of pests such as Lobesia botrana (Korányi et al., 2025).

Figure 3  IPM implementation framework in European vineyards Image caption: This figure outlines the IPM workflow in European vineyards, including monitoring, threshold-based decisions, prevention-first measures, necessary intervention, and evaluation, highlighting the roles of DSS, biological control, and targeted pesticide use in reducing chemical inputs

Comparative studies of organic and IPM vineyards in Europe further indicate that integrated management can maintain effective control of diseases and weeds while reducing overall toxic load and avoiding some of the limitations associated with strictly organic systems. In Swiss vineyards, long-term use of herbicides and copper-based fungicides has been shown to alter the structure of soil bacterial, fungal, and protist communities and to reduce soil microbial respiration, highlighting the ecological costs of intensive pesticide use (Steiner et al., 2024). In contrast, IPM systems based on limited and targeted pesticide applications are more likely to prevent severe disease outbreaks while reducing these unintended ecological impacts. Research in Hungarian vineyards has also shown that when IPM is combined with surrounding forest cover, which promotes the activity of natural enemies such as birds and bats, strong pest suppression can still be maintained even at lower levels of insecticide input, keeping moth damage to fruit at relatively low levels (Korányi et al., 2025). These studies indicate that integrated management strategies can reduce pesticide dependence while improving the overall functioning of vineyard ecosystems.

6.2 Smart vineyard management systems

Smart vineyard management systems are gradually becoming an important complement to traditional IPM, especially in precision viticulture, where they show clear advantages. IoT-based sensors, wireless networks, and remote sensing platforms can now provide real-time, high-spatial-resolution data on microclimate, soil moisture, plant status, and pest and disease indicators (Fuentes-Peñailillo et al., 2024; Mansoor et al., 2025). In a case study of precision viticulture in southern Italy, researchers combined IoT-based monitoring of weather and soil parameters with machine learning models to predict grape diseases, optimize water management, and reduce frost damage, demonstrating that this technology is not only feasible but also brings significant agronomic benefits (Pero et al., 2024). From a broader application perspective, IoT-assisted smart traps and crop health sensors can enable the early detection of pests and diseases, thereby supporting targeted interventions, reducing pesticide use, and better reflecting the core principles of IPM (Mansoor et al., 2025).

Data-driven pest and disease management further builds on these sensing systems and artificial intelligence technologies, driving a transformation in IPM decision-making. AIoT platforms designed for vineyards can integrate field sensors, cloud computing, and machine learning algorithms to predict the infection risks caused by major pathogens such as Plasmopara viticola, Uncinula necator, and Botrytis spp., allowing growers to take action before symptoms appear and thereby avoid the traditional calendar-based practice of broad-area spraying (Fuentes-Peñailillo et al., 2024; Pero et al., 2024). In broader agricultural applications, deep learning models connected to IoT networks have already shown high accuracy in plant disease identification, helping to enable precise, site-specific pesticide application and optimize the timing of control measures. Research on smart sensors and agricultural IoT has shown that real-time analysis and threshold-based warning functions can be embedded into farm management software, transforming complex data streams into actionable IPM recommendations while also supporting the coordinated optimization of irrigation and fertilization management (Ali et al., 2023; Mansoor et al., 2025). As these technologies become more accessible, “smart IPM” in viticulture is likely to drive pest and disease management toward greater localization, predictive capacity, and resource efficiency.

7 Emerging Technologies and Development Trends in Grapevine Protection

7.1 Genomic and breeding approaches

Breeding disease-resistant grape cultivars is one of the core directions for future grape protection, offering significant potential to reduce reliance on fungicides. After more than a century of breeding efforts, numerous fungus-resistant varieties (commonly referred to as PIWI types) have been developed, which, depending on the cultivar and environmental conditions, can reduce fungicide use by up to 80% (Trapp and Töpfer, 2023). Multinational trials conducted in France and Germany have shown that some resistant cultivars can even reduce fungicide applications by approximately 90%, while also enhancing arthropod diversity and overall vineyard biodiversity (Trapp et al., 2025). These cultivars are gradually being incorporated into the European Union’s Green Deal and Farm to Fork strategies aimed at pesticide reduction, and are considered important tools for addressing climate change and advancing smart viticulture.

Building on this, rootstock breeding and selection further enhance stress tolerance, including improved resistance to drought, soil-borne pests and diseases, and other belowground stresses, which is particularly critical under future climate change scenarios (Marín et al., 2020). Genomic technologies are now being fully integrated into breeding programs. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) has been widely applied to traits controlled by major genes, such as resistance loci for downy mildew and powdery mildew, while high-resolution melting (HRM)-based marker systems enable rapid screening of quality traits such as fruit color (Magon et al., 2023; Luca et al., 2024). For complex traits, including stress resistance, yield, and quality, genomic selection (GS) and predictive genomics show even greater potential, with prediction accuracies reaching up to 0.9 for certain traits, thereby enabling early selection and shortening breeding cycles (Brault et al., 2024). Combined with genome-wide association studies (GWAS), germplasm resources, and gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR/Cas9, these approaches are expected to facilitate the development of “climate-smart” grape cultivars with combined resistance to diseases and tolerance to drought, heat, or cold. At present, gene editing targeting susceptibility genes and stress-response pathways has already shown progress in improving grape cold and drought tolerance, and is expected to complement conventional breeding strategies in the future. 

7.2 Digital and precision agriculture technologies

Digital technologies are rapidly transforming pest and disease monitoring and decision support in vineyards. Artificial intelligence-based image analysis, combined with mobile devices and online platforms, has already been used to automatically identify and count key pests in traps, as exemplified by the EyesOnTraps system in grape production (Rosado et al., 2022). This system integrates computer vision, temperature sensors, trap geolocation, and phenological models, such as the degree-day model for the European grapevine moth, into an operational decision support system (DSS), improving the precision of pest management while reducing the labor costs of manual monitoring. In addition, smartphone-based citizen science tools use deep learning algorithms to identify leaf diseases and insect pests, demonstrating the feasibility of real-time diagnosis and data collection at the farm scale (Christakakis et al., 2024). AI and deep learning, combined with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and ground-based imaging, have become an important foundation of smart agriculture, enabling the classification, segmentation, and prediction of pests and diseases from complex visual information (Zhu et al., 2024).

UAVs and advanced sensing technologies are also playing an increasingly important role in grape health monitoring. UAV systems equipped with RGB, multispectral, and hyperspectral sensors can be used to detect and map grape phylloxera infestation zones, and can be combined with canopy vigor models and vegetation indices to build predictive monitoring tools (Vanegas et al., 2018). Multi-temporal UAV multispectral imaging can also be used to monitor the development of downy mildew, identify early symptoms at both plot and individual vine scales, and track changes in canopy structure as well as near-infrared and red-edge reflectance (Portela et al., 2025). Kouadio et al. (2023) showed that grapevine is one of the crops most intensively studied for UAV-based disease detection, and that the current trend is toward multisensor fusion and machine learning analysis to improve detection accuracy and practical application value. Remote sensing and proximal sensors are also used to monitor vineyard microclimate, soil moisture, and canopy status, thereby supporting precision irrigation, frost protection, and microclimate regulation, which indirectly reduces disease risk and optimizes pest and disease management strategies (Sun et al., 2023).

7.3 Sustainable and climate-resilient strategies

Climate change is reshaping the pattern of grape pests and diseases and is accelerating the development of climate-adaptive management strategies. Rising temperatures, more frequent heat waves, and changing precipitation patterns are altering grape phenology, and in many regions have already advanced harvest time by 2-3 weeks. These changes are also modifying the pressure exerted by pathogens and insect pests, and some traditional wine-growing regions are expected to face severe drought and heat stress by the end of this century (Van Leeuwen et al., 2024). Global-scale analyses indicate that, under climate warming, the synchrony between grapevines and key pests such as Lobesia botrana is changing, which may lead to an increase in pest generations or shifts in the timing of damage.

In response to these changes, adaptation strategies in viticulture include replacing cultivars and rootstocks, promoting drought- and heat-tolerant materials, and optimizing training systems and canopy management to reduce heat load and improve microclimatic conditions that are favorable to disease development (Marín et al., 2020; Van Leeuwen et al., 2024). At the same time, the integration of artificial intelligence-based warning systems and smart agriculture sensors can help growers respond in advance to extreme weather events and climate-driven disease risks.

From a broader perspective, sustainable ecological cultivation provides systemic support for these technologies. Studies in Mediterranean and semi-arid regions have shown that combining deficit irrigation strategies, such as regulated deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying, with agroecological practices, including cover crops, mulching, compost application, reduced tillage, and the promotion of beneficial microbial interactions, can improve water-use efficiency, enhance soil health, and strengthen plant stress tolerance, while maintaining or even improving fruit quality (Romero et al., 2022). These measures help mitigate drought and heat stress, while also reducing erosion and nutrient loss and supporting natural enemy populations, thereby achieving the dual goals of climate adaptation and pesticide reduction (Marín et al., 2020). The wider adoption of disease-resistant cultivars, especially in the context of the European Green Deal, will further reduce fungicide use, enhance biodiversity, and improve the ecological functioning and long-term sustainability of vineyard systems (Trapp and Töpfer, 2023).

8 Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Current grape pest and disease management is shifting from a model based on sole reliance on chemical pesticides toward an integrated approach that combines multiple control measures. Agronomic management, disease-resistant cultivars, biological control agents, decision support systems (DSS), and more judicious chemical control have become the main tools in grape protection. Combining agronomic regulation, biological control, genetic resistance, and targeted spraying can maintain yield and quality while reducing pesticide inputs and improving the vineyard ecological environment. Some case studies have also shown that combined measures such as reduced-copper programs, resistance inducers, and predictive models are feasible in practical production.

However, in reality, chemical control remains the basic strategy in most vineyards, and total pesticide use has not declined despite the wider adoption of IPM concepts. This is related not only to insufficient policy support and the inadequate application of ecological regulation mechanisms, but also to factors such as growers’ awareness, upfront investment, labor requirements, and concerns about production risks. The adoption rates of virus disease management, biological control, and more complex integrated technologies are still relatively low. Difficult access to forecasting tools, insufficient precision in pesticide application, and the high cost of alternative technologies have also limited the effectiveness of implementation. The development of new technologies is also relatively fragmented. Genomics, RNA interference, nanodelivery systems, smart sensors, drone-based monitoring, and advanced DSS are still progressing largely in parallel and have not yet formed a highly coordinated and efficient integrated system.

Future research should focus on improving the stability and substitution potential of non-chemical control technologies so that they can truly serve as major supports for pesticide reduction or even replacement. Plant-derived and microbe-derived biopesticides, nanodelivery systems, and RNA interference technologies show strong promise for controlling major pathogens, but their industrial application still requires large-scale field validation, formulation optimization, and cost reduction. At the same time, breeding cultivars with durable resistance to downy mildew, powdery mildew, gray mold, trunk diseases, and viral diseases through marker-assisted selection, genomic selection, and CRISPR technologies will also reduce the need for chemical intervention at the source. More research in agroecology is also needed, especially through the use of cover crops

Future grape protection will increasingly depend on interdisciplinary integration. Internet of Things sensors, drone imaging, and artificial intelligence-based decision platforms are expected to improve the coordination of monitoring, forecasting, and precision spraying, but this will require the establishment of a closed-loop system from sensing to action, as well as stable operation under complex environmental conditions. At the same time, socioeconomic and behavioral factors should not be overlooked. Policy support, technical training, and participatory extension are needed to lower the barriers for growers to adopt new technologies. In response to climate change, invasive pests, and the increasing emergence of new pathogens, future grape pest and disease management must move toward a more forward-looking, biosecurity-oriented, and system-integrated direction, ultimately building a modern grape production system that is low-input, highly resilient, and sustainable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to Ms. Li for her assistance in organizing the literature materials. The authors also extend special thanks to the two anonymous peer reviewers for their comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript. 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors affirm that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Aher P.G., Sabnis V., and Jain J.K., 2025, Deep learning for grape leaf disease detection: a review, Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(11): 2025364.

https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025364

Ali A., Hussain T., Tantashutikun N., Hussain N., and Cocetta G., 2023, Application of smart techniques, internet of things and data mining for resource use efficient and sustainable crop production, Agriculture, 13(2): 397.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13020397

Alimzhanova M., Meirbekov N., Syrgabek Y., López-Serna R., and Yegemova S., 2025, Plant- and microbial-based organic disease management for grapevines: a review, Agriculture, 15(9): 963.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15090963

Asghari S., Harighi B., Mozafari A.A., Esmaeel Q., and Ait Barka E., 2019, Screening of endophytic bacteria isolated from domesticated and wild growing grapevines as potential biological control agents against crown gall disease, BioControl, 64(6): 723-735.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-019-09963-z

Barzman M., Bàrberi P., Birch N., Boonekamp P., Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S., Graf B., Hommel B., Jensen J., Kiss J., Kudsk P., Lamichhane J., Messéan A., Moonen A., Ratnadass A., Ricci P., Sarah J., and Sattin M., 2015, Eight principles of integrated pest management, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(4): 1199-1215.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0327-9

Bashyala S., Poudela D., and Gautamb B., 2022, A review on cultural practice as an effective pest management approach under integrated pest management, Tropical Agroecosystems, 3: 34-40.

https://doi.org/10.26480/taec.01.2022.34.40

Bois B., Zito S., and Calonnec A., 2017, Climate vs grapevine pests and diseases worldwide: the first results of a global survey, OENO One, 51(2): 133-139.

https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1780

Brault C., Segura V., Roques M., Lamblin P., Bouckenooghe V., Pouzalgues N., Cunty C., Breil M., Frouin M., Garcin L., Camps L., Ducasse M., Romieu C., Masson G., Julliard S., Flutre T., and Cunff L., 2024, Enhancing grapevine breeding efficiency through genomic prediction and selection index, G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 14(4): jkae038.

https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkae038

Bregaglio S., Savian F., Raparelli E., Morelli D., Epifani R., Pietrangeli F., Nigro C., Bugiani R., Pini S., Culatti P., Tognetti D., Spanna F., Gerardi M., Delillo I., Bajocco S., Fanchini D., Fila G., Ginaldi F., and Manici L., 2022, A public decision support system for the assessment of plant disease infection risk shared by Italian regions, Journal of Environmental Management, 317: 115365.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115365

Brulé D., Héloir M., Roudaire T., Villette J., Bonnet S., Pascal Y., Darblade B., Crozier P., Hugueney P., Coma V., and Poinssot B., 2024, Increasing vineyard sustainability: innovating a targeted chitosan-derived biocontrol solution to induce grapevine resistance against downy and powdery mildews, Frontiers in Plant Science, 15: 1360254.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1360254

Capriotti L., Baraldi E., Mezzetti B., Limera C., and Sabbadini S., 2020, Biotechnological approaches: gene overexpression, gene silencing, and genome editing to control fungal and oomycete diseases in grapevine, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21(16): 5701.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21165701

Cargnus E., Moosavi S., Frizzera D., Floreani C., Zandigiacomo P., Bigot G., Mosetti D., and Pavan F., 2024, Influence of vineyard inter-row management on grapevine leafhoppers and their natural enemies, Insects, 15(5): 355.

https://doi.org/10.3390/insects15050355

Checola G., Sonego P., Zorer R., Mazzoni V., Ghidoni F., Gelmetti A., and Franceschi P., 2024, A novel dataset and deep learning object detection benchmark for grapevine pest surveillance, Frontiers in Plant Science, 15: 1485216.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1485216

Christakakis P., Papadopoulou G., Mikos G., Kalogiannidis N., Ioannidis D., Tzovaras D., and Pechlivani E.M., 2024, Smartphone-based citizen science tool for plant disease and insect pest detection using artificial intelligence, Technologies, 12(7): 101.

https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies12070101

Cocco A., Pacheco da Silva V.C., Benelli G., Botton M., Lucchi A., and Lentini A., 2021, Sustainable management of the vine mealybug in organic vineyards, Journal of Pest Science, 94(2): 153-185.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-020-01305-8

Compant S., Brader G., Muzammil S., Sessitsch A., Lebrihi A., and Mathieu F., 2013, Use of beneficial bacteria and their secondary metabolites to control grapevine pathogen diseases, BioControl, 58(4): 435-455.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-012-9479-6

Deguine J.P., Aubertot J.N., Flor R.J., Lescourret F., Wyckhuys K.A., and Ratnadass A., 2021, Integrated pest management: good intentions, hard realities: a review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 41(3): 38.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00689-w

Etminani F., Harighi B., Bahramnejad B., and Mozafari A.A., 2024, Antivirulence effects of cell-free culture supernatant of endophytic bacteria against grapevine crown gall agent Agrobacterium tumefaciens and induction of defense responses in plantlets via intact bacterial cells, BMC Plant Biology, 24(1): 104.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-04779-1

Faist H., Keller A., Hentschel U., and Deeken R., 2016, Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) crown galls host distinct microbiota, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 82(18): 5542-5552.

https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01131-16

Fuentes-Peñailillo F., Gutter K., Vega R., and Silva G.C., 2024, Transformative technologies in digital agriculture: leveraging Internet of Things, remote sensing and artificial intelligence for smart crop management, Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks, 13(4): 39.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jsan13040039

Galli M., Feldmann F., Vogler U.K., and Kogel K.H., 2024, Can biocontrol be the game-changer in integrated pest management: a review of definitions, methods and strategies, Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 131(2): 265-291.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-024-00878-1

Gan Y., Liu Z., Zhang F., Xu Q., Wang X., Xue H., Su X., Long Q., Huang G., Liu W., Xu X., Sun L., Zhang Y., Liu Y., Fang X., Li C., Yang X., Wei P., Fan X., Zhang C., Zhang P., Liu C., Zhou L., Zhang Z., Wang Y., Liu Z., and Zhou Y., 2025, Deep learning empowers genomic selection of pest-resistant grapevine, Horticulture Research, 12(8): uhaf128.

https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhaf128

Gawande A., and Sherekar S., 2024, Grape dataset: a dataset for disease prediction and classification for machine learning applications through environmental parameters, Data in Brief, 54: 110546.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2024.110546

Gutiérrez-Gamboa G., Zheng W., and de Toda F.M., 2021, Current viticultural techniques to mitigate the effects of global warming on grape and wine quality: a comprehensive review, Food Research International, 139: 109946.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109946

Habbadi K., Aoujila F., Yahyaouia H., Benbouazza A., Iraqui S., and Achbani H., 2023, Grapevine crown gall: current data and research perspectives, Journal of Microbiology Biotechnology and Food Sciences, 13: e10198.

https://doi.org/10.55251/jmbfs.10198

Hajji-Hedfi L., Wannassi T., and Abdel-Azeem A.M., 2025, Harnessing a microbial consortium and compost to control grapevine pathogens: a sustainable viticulture strategy for disease suppression and quality enhancement, Horticulturae, 11(7): 769.

https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11070769

Kaya A., Tezcan H., and Atak A., 2025, Comparative efficiency and residue levels of spraying programs against powdery mildew in grape varieties, Open Life Sciences, 20(1): 20251144.

https://doi.org/10.1515/biol-2025-1144

Kenfaoui J., Lahlali R., Laasli S., Goura K., Fardi M., Tahiri A., Ghadraoui L., and Amiri S., 2023, The potency and effectiveness of six essential oils in controlling grapevine trunk diseases in Morocco, Journal of Natural Pesticide Research, 6: 100053.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.napere.2023.100053

Koledenkova K., Esmaeel Q., Jacquard C., Nowak J., Clément C., and Ait Barka E., 2022, Plasmopara viticola the causal agent of downy mildew of grapevine: from its taxonomy to disease management, Frontiers in Microbiology, 13: 889472.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2022.889472

Korányi D., Zsebők S., Báldi A., Brambilla M., Varga M., and Batáry P., 2025, Forest cover enhances pest control by birds and bats independently of vineyard management intensity, Journal of Applied Ecology, 62(8): 1844-1855.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.70094

Kouadio L., Jarroudi M., Belabess Z., Laasli S., Roni M., Amine I., Mokhtari N., Mokrini F., Junk J., and Lahlali R., 2023, A review on UAV-based applications for plant disease detection and monitoring, Remote Sensing, 15(17): 4273.

https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15174273

Leal C., Gramaje D., Fontaine F., Richet N., Trotel-Aziz P., and Armengol J., 2023, Evaluation of Bacillus subtilis PTA-271 and Trichoderma atroviride SC1 to control Botryosphaeria dieback and black-foot pathogens in grapevine propagation material, Pest Management Science, 79(5): 1674-1683.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.7339

Lessio F., and Alma A., 2021, Models applied to grapevine pests: a review, Insects, 12(2): 169.

https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12020169

Liviz C.D.A.M., Maciel G.M., Pinheiro D.F., Lima N.F., Ribeiro I.S., and Haminiuk C.W.I., 2025, Pesticide residues in grapes and wine: an overview on detection, health risks, and regulatory challenges, Food Research International, 203: 115771.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2025.115771

Luca L., Guardo M., Bennici S., Ferlito F., Nicolosi E., La Malfa S., Gentile A., and Distefano G., 2024, Development of an efficient molecular-marker assisted selection strategy for berry color in grapevine, Scientia Horticulturae, 337: 113522.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113522

Magon G., De Rosa V., Martina M., Falchi R., Acquadro A., Barcaccia G., Portis E., Vannozzi A., and De Paoli E., 2023, Boosting grapevine breeding for climate-smart viticulture: from genetic resources to predictive genomics, Frontiers in Plant Science, 14: 1293186.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1293186

Mansoor S., Iqbal S., Popescu S.M., Kim S.L., Chung Y.S., and Baek J.H., 2025, Integration of smart sensors and IOT in precision agriculture: trends, challenges and future prospectives, Frontiers in Plant Science, 16: 1587869.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1587869

Marín D., Armengol J., Carbonell-Bejerano P., Escalona J., Gramaje D., Hernández-Montes E., Intrigliolo D., Martínez-Zapater J., Medrano H., Mirás-Avalos J., Palomares-Rius J., Romero-Azorín P., Savé R., Santesteban L., and Herralde F., 2020, Challenges of viticulture adaptation to global change: tackling the issue from the roots, Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 27(1): 8-25.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12463

Mesguida O., Haidar R., Yacoub A., Dreux-Zigha A., Berthon J., Guyoneaud R., Attard E., and Rey P., 2023, Microbial biological control of fungi associated with grapevine trunk diseases: a review of strain diversity, modes of action, and advantages and limits of current strategies, Journal of Fungi, 9(6): 638.

https://doi.org/10.3390/jof9060638

Moine A., Pugliese M., Monchiero M., Gribaudo I., Gullino M.L., Pagliarani C., and Gambino G., 2023, Effects of fungicide application on physiological and molecular responses of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): a comparison between copper and sulfur fungicides applied alone and in combination with novel fungicides, Pest Management Science, 79(11): 4569-4588.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.7660

Mondello V., Songy A., Battiston E., Pinto C., Coppin C., Trotel-Aziz P., Clément C., Mugnai L., and Fontaine F., 2017, Grapevine trunk diseases: a review of fifteen years of trials for their control with chemicals and biocontrol agents, Plant Disease, 102(7): 1189-1217.

https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-08-17-1181-fe

Mwaka O., Mwamahonje A., Nene W., Rweyemamu E., and Maseta Z., 2024, Pesticides use and its effects on grape production: a review, Sustainable Environment, 10(1): 2366555.

https://doi.org/10.1080/27658511.2024.2366555

Nguyen-Huu T., Ogrinc N., Ledoux L., Jacquard C., Kerzaon I., Lavire C., Clément C., Salzet M., Vial L., Sanchez L., and Fournier I., 2025, In vivo identification and spatial distribution of crown gall disease biomarkers in grapevine, Analytical Chemistry, 97(30): 16364-16373.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.5c02019

Oberti R., Marchi M., Tirelli P., Calcante A., Iriti M., Tona E., Hočevar M., Baur J., Pfaff J., Schütz C., and Ulbrich H., 2016, Selective spraying of grapevines for disease control using a modular agricultural robot, Biosystems Engineering, 146: 203-215.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.12.004

Pavan F., Cargnus E., and Zandigiacomo P., 2026, Vineyard design, cultural practices and physical methods for controlling grapevine pests and disease vectors in Europe: a review, Insects, 17(1): 113.

https://doi.org/10.3390/insects17010113

Pennington T., Reiff J.M., Theiss K., Entling M.H., and Hoffmann C., 2018, Reduced fungicide applications improve insect pest control in grapevine, BioControl, 63(5): 687-695.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10526-018-9896-2

Pero C., Bakshi S., Nappi M., and Tortora G., 2023, IoT-driven machine learning for precision viticulture optimization, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing, 17: 2437-2447.

https://doi.org/10.1109/jstars.2023.3345473

Perria R., Ciofini A., Petrucci W., D'Arcangelo M., Valentini P., Storchi P., Carella G., Pacetti A., and Mugnai L., 2022, A study on the efficiency of sustainable wine grape vineyard management strategies, Agronomy, 12(2): 392.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020392

Pertot I., Caffi T., Rossi V., Mugnai L., Hoffmann C., Grando M., Gary C., Lafond D., Duso C., Thiéry D., Mazzoni V., and Anfora G., 2017, A critical review of plant protection tools for reducing pesticide use on grapevine and new perspectives for the implementation of IPM in viticulture, Crop Protection, 97: 70-84.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2016.11.025

Portela F., Sousa J.J., Araújo-Paredes C., Peres E., Morais R., and Pádua L., 2025, Monitoring the progression of downy mildew on vineyards using multi-temporal unmanned aerial vehicle multispectral data, Agronomy, 15(4): 934.

https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15040934

Rahman M.U., Liu X., Wang X., and Fan B., 2024, Grapevine gray mold disease: infection, defense and management, Horticulture Research, 11(9): uhae182.

https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhae182

Reineke A., and Thiéry D., 2016, Grapevine insect pests and their natural enemies in the age of global warming, Journal of Pest Science, 89(2): 313-328.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-016-0761-8

Rienth M., Vigneron N., Walker R., Castellarin S., Sweetman C., Burbidge C., Bonghi C., Famiani F., and Darriet P., 2021, Modifications of grapevine berry composition induced by main viral and fungal pathogens in a climate change scenario, Frontiers in Plant Science, 12: 717223.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.717223

Romero P., Navarro J.M., and Ordaz P.B., 2022, Towards a sustainable viticulture: the combination of deficit irrigation strategies and agroecological practices in Mediterranean vineyards: a review and update, Agricultural Water Management, 259: 107216.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107216

Román C., Peris M., Esteve J., Tejerina M., Cambray J., Vilardell P., and Planas S., 2022, Pesticide dose adjustment in fruit and grapevine orchards by DOSA3D: fundamentals of the system and on-farm validation, Science of the Total Environment, 808: 152158.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152158

Rosado L., Faria P., Gonçalves J., Silva E., Vasconcelos A., Braga C., Oliveira J., Gomes R., Barbosa T., Ribeiro D., Nogueira T., Ferreira A., and Carlos C., 2022, Eyesontraps: AI-powered mobile-based solution for pest monitoring in viticulture, Sustainability, 14(15): 9729.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159729

Singh S., and Acevedo F.E., 2024, Grapevine plant defense responses associated with arthropod herbivory: a review, Crop Protection, 177: 106551.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2023.106551

Steiner M., Falquet L., Fragnière A.L., Brown A., and Bacher S., 2024, Effects of pesticides on soil bacterial, fungal and protist communities, soil functions and grape quality in vineyards, Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 5(2): e12327.

https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12327

Sun Q., Granco G., Groves L., Voong J., and Van Zyl S., 2023, Viticultural manipulation and new technologies to address environmental challenges caused by climate change, Climate, 11(4): 83.

https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11040083

Testempasis S.I., Papazlatani C.V., Theocharis S., Karas P.A., Koundouras S., Karpouzas D.G., and Karaoglanidis G.S., 2023, Vineyard practices reduce the incidence of Aspergillus spp. and alter the composition of carposphere microbiome in grapes (Vitis vinifera L.), Frontiers in Microbiology, 14: 1257644.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1257644

Thiéry D., Louâpre P., Muneret L., Rusch A., Sentenac G., Vogelweith F., Iltis C., and Moreau J., 2018, Biological protection against grape berry moths: a review, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 38(2): 15.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0493-7

Toffolatti S., Lecchi B., Maddalena G., Marcianò D., Stuknytė M., Arioli S., Mora D., Bianco P., Borsa P., Coatti M., Waldner-Zulauf M., Borghi L., and Torriani S., 2024, The management of grapevine downy mildew: from anti-resistance strategies to innovative approaches for fungicide resistance monitoring, Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection, 131(4): 1225-1232.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41348-024-00867-4

Tortosa A., Vialatte A., Laroche F., Rusch A., Entling M.H., and Giffard B., 2025, Landscape heterogeneity and pesticide reduction favor predation, but also grape infestation by Lobesia botrana, Ecological Applications, 35(4): e70045.

https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.70045

Trapp O., and Töpfer R., 2023, Adoption of new winegrape cultivars to reduce pesticide use in Europe: from the ASEV climate change symposium part 1-viticulture, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 74(2).

https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2023.23041

Trapp O., Avia K., Borrelli C., Eibach R., Merdinoglu D., and Töpfer R., 2025, More sustainability in Europe's vineyards-using resistant grapevine varieties to reduce the input of pesticides, Plants, People, Planet, 7(6): 1621-1628.

https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.70038

Valleggi L., Carella G., Perria R., Mugnai L., and Stefanini F.M., 2023, A Bayesian model for control strategy selection against Plasmopara viticola infections, Frontiers in Plant Science, 14: 1117498.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1117498

Van Leeuwen C., Sgubin G., Bois B., Ollat N., Swingedouw D., Zito S., and Gambetta G.A., 2024, Climate change impacts and adaptations of wine production, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 5(4): 258-275.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-024-00521-5

Vanegas F., Bratanov D., Powell K., Weiss J., and Gonzalez F., 2018, A novel methodology for improving plant pest surveillance in vineyards and crops using UAV-based hyperspectral and spatial data, Sensors, 18(1): 260.

https://doi.org/10.3390/s18010260

Wilson H., and Daane K.M., 2017, Review of ecologically-based pest management in California vineyards, Insects, 8(4): 108.

https://doi.org/10.3390/insects8040108

Yin L., Clark M.D., Burkness E.C., and Hutchison W.D., 2019, Grape phylloxera (Hemiptera: Phylloxeridae), on cold-hardy hybrid wine grapes (Vitis spp.): a review of pest biology, damage, and management practices, Journal of Integrated Pest Management, 10(1): 16.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jipm/pmz011

Zhou W., Arcot Y., Medina R.F., Bernal J., Cisneros-Zevallos L., and Akbulut M.E., 2024, Integrated pest management: an update on the sustainability approach to crop protection, ACS Omega, 9(40): 41130-41147.

https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.4c06628

Zhu H., Lin C., Liu G., Wang D., Qin S., Li A., Xu J., and He Y., 2024, Intelligent agriculture: deep learning in UAV-based remote sensing imagery for crop diseases and pests detection, Frontiers in Plant Science, 15: 1435016.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1435016