Contribution Foam is the characteristic that differentiates sparkling wines from still wines, being the first sensory attribute that tasters and consumers perceive and that determines the final quality of sparkling wines [1]. The foaming properties mainly depend on the chemical composition of wines [2-3], and different factors involved in wine composition will have an effect on foam quality. In Spain, the sparkling wine market focuses on the production of white and rosé sparkling wine, with very low production of red sparkling wines. However, this type of wines is elaborated in countries like Australia, South-Africa, Argentina, Italy or Portugal, with a great acceptance by consumers. No studies on the foaming characteristics of red sparkling wines have been found.

In recent years there has been a growing demand for alternative packaging designs in the food industry focused on diminishing the carbon footprint. Despite the environmental advantages of cans versus bottles, the traditional environment of wine has hindered the establishment of less contaminant containers. In this context, the objective of this study was to understand and generate knowledge about consumers´ perception of canned wines in comparison to bottled wines.

The wine sector is being directly affected by climate change. Temperatures above 30ºC can cause a lag between the ripening of the berry pulp (a rapid increase in sugar content) and the skin

Brettanomyces/Dekkera yeasts in wine are able to produce various spoilage compounds that are, at high concentration, detrimental to wine quality. The principal spoiler compounds associated with Brettanomyces spp. are vinyl and ethyl-phenols that are responsible for off- odours described as “animal”, “medicinal”, “sweaty leather”, “barnyard”, “spicy” and “clove-like”.

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.