Floor management in organic viticulture plays a key role as weed suppression and soil health must be warranted through practices that minimise the recourse to extensive tillage and herbicides, while any resident vegetation or sown cover crop should exert moderate competition for water and nutrients towards the consociated vines. Lack of knowledge exists about the fraction of soil cover crop coverage (S_cc) which might represent the best compromise between the above needs. A four-year study (2017–2020) was conducted in an organically managed cv. Barbera/420 A vineyard in the North-West of Italy, comparing five floor management treatments each having light tillage as the practice chosen to control the under trellis weed growth. Inter-row treatments were permanent grass (PG), tillage (T), alternate tillage and permanent grass every second mid-row (AGT), a variant of this last treatment, where the tilled mid-row was used for growing a temporary winter cover crop terminated in spring (AGC) and temporary grass (TG) where grass was disked post-harvest (mid-October) until natural growth resumption in late winter (mid-February). An assessment was made for soil profile and physicochemical composition, floristic analyses performed in T, PG, and TG treatments, vegetative growth, yield components, grape maturity at harvest, single leaf gas exchange as well as midday and pre-dawn leaf water potentials. While overall scant, mostly season-related differences were found for leaf function and water status, soil management heavily impacted vine performance. Year-round soil cover crop coverage (S_cc) regressed towards total pruning weight/vine and yield/vine showed high linear correlation (R² = 0.93) for pruning weight/vine (to be reduced by 38% at 75% S_cc vs. 0% S_cc of the T treatment), whereas yield/vine was quite poorly correlated (R² = 0.21) showing a 15% decrease in PG vs. T. Regressing S_cc vs total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), total anthocyanins and phenolics concentration disclosed mild linear correlation (R² = 0.52) for the two technology ripening parameters and a much tighter fit for colour and phenolics (R² = 0.79 and 0.90, respectively). AGT had an intermediate behaviour between its two extremes (i.e. T and PG) without assuring any significant marginal gain. Conversely, modulating PG into TG through a temporary removal of the resident vegetation in the fall and AGT into AGC by growing a winter cover crop terminated in the spring as mulching, gave the highest yield at adequate technological and phenolic ripeness. PG assured maximum grapes total soluble solids and total anthocyanin concentration at harvest; however, due to its low vigour, several shortcomings also followed, such as low yeast available nitrogen and malic acid concentration, as well as a tendency to accumulate high amounts of flavonols. Our work led to the conclusion that AGC and TG treatments are quite valuable choices under the specific environment for successful soil management in organic vineyards.

有机葡萄栽培中的地面管理起着关键作用，因为必须通过尽量减少对大面积耕作和除草剂的使用来保证杂草抑制和土壤健康，而任何常驻植被或播种的覆盖作物都应对相关葡萄藤进行适度的水和养分竞争. 缺乏关于土壤覆盖作物覆盖率（S _cc) 这可能代表了上述需求之间的最佳折衷。在有机管理的简历中进行了一项为期四年的研究（2017-2020）。Barbera/420 意大利西北部的一个葡萄园，比较了五种地面管理处理，每种处理都选择轻耕作为控制棚架下杂草生长的做法。行间处理是永久草 (PG)、耕作 (T)、交替耕作和永久草每隔一个中间行 (AGT)，这是最后一种处理的变体，其中耕作的中间行用于种植临时冬季覆盖作物在春季终止（AGC）和临时牧草（TG），在收获后（10 月中旬）将草圆盘，直到冬末（2 月中旬）恢复自然生长。对土壤剖面和物理化学成分进行了评估，在 T、PG 和 TG 处理中进行了植物区系分析，营养生长、产量成分、收获时的葡萄成熟度、单叶气体交换以及中午和黎明前的叶片水势。虽然叶片功能和水分状况的总体差异主要与季节相关，但土壤管理严重影响了葡萄藤的性能。全年土壤覆盖作物覆盖率（S_cc ) 回归到总修剪重量/藤蔓和产量/藤蔓显示高线性相关性 (R ^{2 = 0.93) 修剪重量/藤蔓（在 75% S} _cc与 0% S _cc的 T 处理时减少 38% )，而产量/葡萄藤的相关性非常差 (R ² = 0.21)，显示 PG 与 T 相比下降 15%。回归 S _cc与总可溶性固体 (TSS)、可滴定酸度 (TA)、总花青素和酚类浓度公开两种技术成熟参数的线性相关性（R ² = 0.52）和颜色和酚类物质的更紧密拟合（R ²= 0.79 和 0.90，分别）。AGT 在其两个极端（即 T 和 PG）之间有一个中间行为，而不能保证任何显着的边际收益。相反，通过在秋季临时清除常驻植被将 PG 调节为 TG，通过种植在春季终止的冬季覆盖作物作为覆盖将 AGT 调节为 AGC，在适当的技术和酚类成熟度下获得最高产量。PG 保证了葡萄收获时最大的总可溶性固形物和总花青素浓度；然而，由于其活力低，也出现了一些缺点，例如酵母有效氮和苹果酸浓度低，以及容易积累大量黄酮醇。