Effects of Sowing Time on Yield and Quality of Winter and Spring Wheat Varieties
by
Jun Liu
1,†, 
Yun Shen
2,3,†,
Chaowu Zeng
1,
Jinshan Zhang
4,
Shubing Shi
4,
Lihua Xue
1,
Yonghong Jia
1,
Jianjiang Li
1,* and
Xiaodong Liang
1,* 1
Institute of Food Crops, Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Ürümqi 830091, China
2
Key Laboratory of Subsurface Hydrology and Ecological Effects in Arid Region, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710054, China
3
School of Water and Environment, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710054, China
4
College of Agronomy, Xinjiang Agricultural University, Ürümqi 830052, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Sustainability 2025, 17(6), 2479; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062479
Submission received: 13 December 2024
/
Revised: 3 January 2025
/
Accepted: 8 January 2025
/
Published: 12 March 2025
Abstract
:Grain yield and quality are critical factors in agricultural production. This study aimed to investigate the impact of sowing time on wheat yield and quality and identify the optimal sowing period for wheat in the Xinjiang region of China. The yield and quality changes of different spring and winter wheat varieties were investigated under different sowing periods. The results showed that late sowing of winter wheat and winter sowing of spring wheat adversely affected wheat yield, especially in spring wheat. For winter wheat, late sowing resulted in higher protein content, wet gluten content, rheological properties, and tensile strength, indicating potential quality improvements with delayed sowing. In contrast, the four spring wheat varieties showed an increase in protein and wet gluten contents under winter sowing treatments. However, the effects of winter sowing on grain quality parameters varied among the four varieties. These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing wheat sowing dates locally to achieve both high yield and quality in wheat production.
1. Introduction
Wheat is a staple crop for people around the world. Achieving high yield and superior wheat quality are the primary goals in wheat farming. Yield and quality of wheat are influenced by genetic traits [1], growing environment [2], and farming methods [3]. One key factor affecting the wheat growth cycle is the timing of sowing [4,5,6]. Selecting the optimal sowing date is crucial for maximizing the use of natural resources like light, temperature, water, and soil, thereby ensuring a stable and high yield. Previous studies found that altering the sowing date changes the grain yield and quality by modifying the relative length of the pre-anthesis period and the environmental conditions during the grain-filling period [7,8,9].
In northern China, delayed sowing has been proposed as a common approach to address climate change and enhance crop yields [7]. Liu et al. explained that delayed sowing advanced the growth process, shortened the vegetative growth period, and prolonged the reproductive growth period, thus boosting wheat yield [10]. Conversely, Zhang et al. highlighted the negative impacts of late sowing on semi-winter wheat, noting a reduction in grains per spike and 1000-grain weights due to changes in temperature regimes, which led to decreased yield [11].
The impact of sowing dates on grain quality varied with different wheat varieties. For example, sowing later than a specific time resulted in a reduction in grain protein concentration, nitrogen content per grain, dough stability time, and bread loaf volume [12]. Similarly, delayed sowing dates led to a decrease in bread wheat’s protein percentage (−15%) and gluten concentration (−17.9%) [13]. In contrast, Tian et al. pointed out that grain protein content and wet gluten content increased with delayed sowing dates [14].
Situated in northwest China, Xinjiang features a dry climate, making its agricultural productivity entirely reliant on irrigation. Water resources have emerged as a significant constraint on wheat production activities [15,16]. Conventional winter wheat planting encounters issues of water wastage to ensure the survival of wheat seedlings through the winter. Besides, the late harvest of last-season crops like corn often causes winter wheat to miss the optimal planting period. This situation has led to the investigation of late and super-late sowing for winter wheat, as well as winter sowing for spring wheat, as alternative practices in the region. While the impact of sowing times on wheat yield and quality has been extensively studied, the responses of wheat to different sowing dates vary depending on genetic traits and environmental conditions. There remains a gap in research focusing on wheat quality and yield at local sowing dates in Xinjiang. Hence, this study aimed to analyze the effects of different sowing dates on the yield and quality of winter and spring wheat varieties, with the objective of identifying the optimal sowing time that enhances both yield and quality.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experiment Location and Wheat Varieties
The study was conducted in Emin County, part of Tacheng Prefecture in Xinjiang Province, China (46.56° N, 83.70° E) during the growing season of 2020–2021. Figure S1 illustrates the seasonal rainfall and average temperatures. The soil properties at the experimental site are listed in Table S1.
The varieties examined in this article are local main varieties, including four spring-sown types and four winter-sown types. Among them, winter wheat varieties have good frost resistance as well as strong resistance to snow rot and snow mold. In addition, the spring wheat varieties have good quality, such as medium–strong gluten content as well as certain drought resistance and dry hot air resistance. The spring wheat varieties are Xin Chun 37 (X37), Xin Chun 44 (X44), Yong Liang 15 (Y15), and Ning Chun 16 (N16). The winter-sown types are Xin Dong 17 (X17), Xin Dong 18 (X18), Xin Dong 22 (X22), and Xin Dong 41 (X41).
2.2. Experiment Design
According to the production and sowing habits of local farmers, the experiment was designed using a randomized block layout that included three sowing periods: normal sowing (B1), late sowing (B2), and super-late sowing (B3), with each period replicated three times. The sowing dates were 10 October, 20 October, and 30 October 2021. The sowing date of 5 April 2022 (B4) served as a reference for spring wheat.
Each plot had an area of 6 m2 (1.2 m × 5 m) and was sown at a rate of 375.0 kg/hm2. For basal fertilization, each subplot received ternary compound fertilizers (N: P2O5: K2O in the ratios of 17%: 22%: 6%, respectively) along with urea (which contains 46% nitrogen).
2.3. Determination of Yield
Before the wheat reached maturity, the number of tillers at each sample point was examined to calculate the number of spikes per hectare. From each treatment, 10 representative plants were randomly selected, and their grains per spike were analyzed in the laboratory through seed testing. Following drying and cleaning, two sample groups were randomly selected, each containing 500 grains. The weight of these samples was measured to calculate the thousand-grain weight.
2.4. Quality Assessment
Protein content was determined using the Brabender near-infrared light grain quality tester.
The contents of dry and wet gluten were measured according to the standards GB/T 14607-93 [17,18] (China), respectively, with the results normalized to a 14% moisture basis.
The gluten index was derived from the ratio of wet gluten retained on the sieve to the total wet gluten, as shown in the following formula:
Gluten index = (wet gluten weight on sieve/total wet gluten weight) × 100%
Farinograph parameters were measured using the Brabender 810,106,002 silty instrument. The degree of weakening was assessed according to the ICC evaluation standard, whereas other parameters followed the AACC54-21 standard [19].
Extensograph parameters were obtained using the Brabender 860,033,002 tensile instrument and evaluated according to the AACC54-10 standard [20].
2.5. Statistical Analysis
Tukey’s test was employed for the statistical analysis using SPSS 23.0 software. Pearson correlation coefficients and PCA were analyzed by Origin 2021.
3. Results
3.1. Effects of Sowing Date on Yield Components
As shown in Table 1, the sowing date had a notable impact on wheat yield determinants, such as spike count, grain numbers per spike, thousand-grain weight, and overall yield. It was observed that later sowing dates (B2 and B3 treatments) led to a reduction in both spike count and grains per spike among the winter wheat varieties examined, with the most pronounced decrease observed under the B3 treatment. Specifically, varieties X18, X22, and X41 exhibited significant reductions in grains per spike under B3. Conversely, the thousand-grain weight increased under the B2 treatment across all varieties, especially for X18. However, yields were adversely affected under both B2 and B3 treatments, with X22 and X41 yields decreasing by 7.59% and 15.30%, respectively, under the B2 and B3 treatments.
The analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the sowing date significantly influenced yield components, while the variety was a key determinant of grain number and yield. In addition, an interaction between sowing date and variety was identified, which had a significant impact on the number of spikes.
The winter sowing of spring wheat stands in stark contrast to its impact on winter wheat, particularly in terms of the number of spikes per plant and yield. Across the four varieties of spring wheat, the grain count per spike showed minimal variation, while a significant decline in spike number was observed. Notably, the B2 and B3 treatments resulted in average reductions of 54.19% and 40.25%, respectively, when compared to conventional spring sowing, as detailed in Table 2. The B1 treatment, on the other hand, significantly enhanced the thousand-grain weight for the N16 and X44 varieties, indicating a potential compensatory mechanism in certain genotypes to counteract yield loss. Besides, winter sowing had the most detrimental effect on the yield of N16, with reductions ranging from 33.44% to 38.03% across the B1 to B3 treatments.
The effect of sowing date on yield and its components was pronounced. However, the interaction between sowing date and variety only had a notable effect on yield.
3.2. Effects of Sowing Date on Protein Quality
As shown in Figure 1a, the effect of the sowing date on wheat quality was consistent across different winter varieties. Compared to normal sowing, the B2 treatment increased seed protein content, while the B3 treatment led to a decline. Notably, the late-sown wheat variety X17 exhibited a remarkable 12.53% increase in seed protein content under the B2 treatment.
In spring wheat, winter sowing variably enhanced wheat protein content across different varieties (Figure 1b). The B2 treatment notably increased the protein content of N16 by 19.83%, while both B2 and B3 treatments significantly boosted the protein content of X44 by 10.74% and 15.95%, respectively. However, for varieties Y15 and X37, the changes were not statistically significant, although a slight enhancement in protein content was observed across the B1 to B3 treatments.
The trend in wet gluten was basically consistent with the grain protein content. Late sowing improved the wet gluten content, although sowing that was excessively delayed had adverse effects. The B2 treatment significantly boosted the gluten content in X17, while the sowing date had a less pronounced impact on other winter wheat varieties (Figure 1c). For spring wheat, winter sowing generally promoted wet gluten accumulation, with notable increases observed for N16 and Y15 under the B2 treatment and X44 under the B3 treatment, except for the X37 variety (Figure 1d).
Figure 2 shows the gluten index across different sowing dates for both winter and spring wheat. As shown in Figure 2a, apart from X22, the sowing date had a negligible effect on the gluten index of winter wheat. In comparison, it had a notable effect on the gluten index of spring wheat, which varied depending on the variety. In Figure 2b, the B3 treatment significantly boosted the gluten index of N16 by 13.22%, but it caused a marked reduction for varieties Y15, X37, and X44.
ANOVA analysis confirmed that the wet gluten content and gluten index in both winter and spring wheat were significantly or highly significantly affected by sowing dates, varieties, and their interaction throughout the experimental year. The variety was the primary factor determining protein content (Tables S3 and S4).
3.3. Effects of Sowing Date on Rheological Property Quality
As illustrated in Table 3, the sowing date had a significant effect on several crucial parameters of winter wheat flour quality, including formation time, stabilization time, softness, and the powder quality index. Notably, the formation and stabilization times showed a trend of initially increasing and then decreasing with delayed sowing dates, reaching their peak values at the B2 treatment. This pattern was particularly evident for the X18 and X41 varieties. In contrast, the other two wheat varieties did not show significant changes.
The degree of softness exhibited an inverse pattern relative to the time of formation and stabilization, initially decreasing and then increasing with later sowing dates. This trend was particularly noticeable in varieties X17, X22, and X41. The powder index for all four winter wheat varieties peaked under the B2 treatment, indicating that delayed sowing can improve the baking qualities of winter wheat flour. This practice may offer great agronomic advantages for optimizing flour quality.
Moreover, the results of ANOVA indicated that sowing date and wheat variety independently influenced formation time, stabilization time, softness, and powder quality index, with a significant interaction between these factors also observed. Notably, while sowing date and variety had a substantial impact on the aforementioned quality parameters, the water absorption of the flour was mainly influenced by the variety alone, highlighting the inherent genetic determinants of hydration properties.
Similarly, the sowing date had a significant effect on the rheological properties of spring wheat, as shown in Table 4. For N16, winter sowing at the B2 and B3 stages substantially enhanced its rheological characteristics, such as softness, formation and stabilization time, and powder quality index. This suggests that late and super-late winter sowing enhances the quality of N16. Conversely, X44 showed improvements under the B1 treatment, but this trend reversed with further delayed sowing. In contrast, the Y15 and X37 varieties experienced a decline in formation, stabilization time, softness, and powder quality index under all winter sowing treatments, indicating their sensitivity to sowing date adjustments and their subsequent impact on dough quality.
In addition, the interaction effects between sowing date and wheat variety significantly affected these rheological properties of spring wheat. However, as observed in winter wheat, water absorption was mainly determined by the wheat variety rather than the sowing date or its interaction with the variety.
3.4. Effect of Sowing Date on Tensile Properties
From Figure 3a, it is evident that the sowing date significantly influenced the tensile properties of wheat dough, such as stretch area, tractility, and maximum resistance. Delayed sowing generally increased the stretch area for all winter varieties. Under the B2 treatment, the stretch area for X17, X18, X22, and X41 reached its maximum value, increasing by 40.76%, 19.76%, 17.17%, and 37.57%, respectively, compared to normal sowing. Tractility also rose with delayed sowing, notably for X17 and X22 under the B2 treatment, with elongation of 11.44% and 11.67%, respectively, and for X22 and X41 under the B3 treatment, with elongation of 11.15% and 11.22%, respectively (Figure 3b). The trend for maximum stretching resistance was basically consistent with the dough stretching area; it initially increased with delayed sowing time before decreasing with further delay, reaching the maximum value under the B2 treatment (Figure 3c). In addition, sowing time, varieties, and their interaction affected the stretch area and maximum resistance, although their interaction did not significantly affect tractility (Table S4).
Different from winter wheat, spring wheat exhibited varied responses to winter sowing regarding dough stretching characteristics (Figure 3d–f). Among these, winter sowing increased the stretching area and maximum resistance of N16, although it reduced tractility. The B1 treatment boosted the maximum resistance of X44 dough, but a further delay of sowing time in B3 significantly decreased it. In addition, for Y15 and X37, all winter sowing dates resulted in a significant reduction in dough stretch area and maximum resistance, as well as a notable decrease in tractility for X37. This result is consistent with the changes observed in the sowing date effects on the rheological properties of spring wheat dough, indicating that winter sowing of N16 and regular winter sowing of X44 were advantageous for enhancing the flour quality of these two varieties. Similar to observations in winter wheat, the sowing date, variety, and their interactions significantly affected stretch area and maximum resistance, while their interaction did not significantly affect tractility (Table S5).
3.5. PCA and Correlation Analysis
For winter wheat, the first principal component, characterized by an eigenvalue of 4.88 and a contribution rate of 44.40%, was mainly determined by the following: stabilization time, flour quality index, and formation time. These traits are essential in defining dough quality and processing characteristics, highlighting their significance in the overall quality of winter wheat under various sowing time conditions. The second principal component, which had an eigenvalue of 2.88 and a contribution rate of 26.1%, was mainly determined by gluten index, tensile area, and maximum tensile resistance (Table S6). Significant positive correlations between the dough formation time, stabilization time, and flour quality index with wet gluten content were observed, while these dough characteristics showed a significant negative correlation with softness (Figure S2b).
For spring wheat, PCA identified that the top three principal components accounted for 76.2% of the total variance in quality traits, as shown in Figure S3a. The first principal component, which contributed 34.10% and had an eigenvalue of 3.75, was mainly influenced by gluten index, degree of weakness, and stretch area (Table S7). This suggests that these traits are vital for understanding the physical dough properties and their relationships with sowing dates. The second principal component, with an eigenvalue of 3.10 and a contribution of 28.20%, was strongly linked to formation time, stabilization time, and powder quality index. No significant relationships were found between formation time, stabilization time, and powder quality index with wet gluten content, protein content, and gluten index (Figure S3b).
4. Discussion
Wheat yield and quality are affected by a range of factors such as varieties, cultivation measures, and climatic conditions [21]. By adjusting the sowing date appropriately, climatic conditions can be leveraged to effectively improve wheat growth [7,13]. China’s Xinjiang region is a major producer of corn and wheat, both of which are grown in reverse crops. In the autumn, due to the rapid drop in temperature, the seeds of the previous planted corn are slowly dehydrated, so that wheat must be planted late or as spring wheat. Therefore, it is necessary to know what effect the change of sowing date will have on wheat yield and quality. Our research supported previous studies by confirming that sowing date had a significant impact on wheat yield and quality, with the interaction between sowing date and varieties being crucial in regulating these two aspects [22,23].
Improper sowing timing can significantly reduce yield. Sowing too early may trigger pre-winter vegetative growth in wheat, increasing the risk of frost damage and consequently causing yield losses. On the other hand, sowing too late adversely affects seed germination rates and tillering potential, heightens spikelet degradation, and reduces fertility, ultimately leading to yield declines [24,25]. Late and super-late sowing negatively affected both spring and winter wheat yields. This result is consistent with Huang et al. that late sowing would deteriorate the agronomic and yield traits of the wheat cultivar Jinan 17 [26]. Since wheat growth is very sensitive to temperature, the primary reason is the extreme cold weather in the Emin area, which prevents wheat seedlings from overwintering properly [27]. Besides, periods of concentrated rainfall during flowering may also negatively impact yield.
The effects of sowing dates on grain quality varied depending on the sowing schedules, wheat varieties, and environmental conditions. High-protein wheat varieties, for example, demonstrated greater sensitivity to changes in sowing dates compared to low-protein varieties [28]. Our results revealed significant interactions between variety and environment in the response of winter and spring wheat quality to different sowing dates. Late sowing proved advantageous for improving winter wheat grain quality, such as protein content, wet gluten content, and processing quality, whereas excessively delayed sowing had detrimental effects on these traits. In contrast, the effects on spring wheat quality varied from different varieties. These findings highlighted the potential for agronomic practices in the Emin area, specifically sowing date adjustments, to optimize quality by leveraging the inherent genetic capacities under different climatic conditions. Meanwhile, the distinct responses of different varieties to sowing dates underscored the importance of customized agronomic strategies that take into account both the genetic characteristics of wheat cultivars and their specific environmental contexts. However, because the local climate conditions have different degrees of change every year, which is roughly a 4–5-year microclimate cycle, future research will continue to be carried out, hoping to provide more practical research results for the study of wheat sowing time in the Xinjiang region.
5. Conclusions
This study is of great significance for local wheat production, and the main conclusions of this study are as follows:
- Yield: The adjustment of sowing dates was detrimental to achieving high yields for both spring and winter wheat in this region;
- Grain quality: X17, X18, X22, and X41 are suitable for late sowing, and N16 is suitable for extremely late sowing, while X44 is only suitable for normal-time sowing;
- Advice: Wheat varieties suitable for sowing should be selected according to local sowing habits, and agronomic measures such as water and fertilizer management and rational crop rotation should be combined to further improve wheat yield and quality.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su17062479/s1, Figure S1: Monthly changes in temperature and precipitation during wheat growing seasons (a) and dynamics of daily minimum ground temperature in 4 cm soil layer during over-wintering period (b); Figure S2: PCA (a) and correlation analysis (b) of winter wheat processing quality; Figure S3: PCA (a) and correlation analysis (b) of winter wheat processing quality; Table S1: Basic properties of the experimental soil; Table S2: Variance analysis of winter wheat gluten characteristics by sowing date; Table S3: Variance analysis of winter wheat gluten characteristics by sowing date; Table S4: Variance analysis of winter wheat stretch characters by sowing date; Table S5: Variance analysis of spring wheat stretch characters by sowing date; Table S6: Principal component analysis of processing quality character; Table S7: Principal component analysis of processing quality character.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: J.L. (Jun Liu), Y.S., L.X.; investigation: J.L. (Jun Liu), J.Z., S.S.; data curation: J.L. (Jun Liu), Y.S., Y.J.; writing: J.L. (Jun Liu), Y.S., C.Z.; reviewing: J.L. (Jianjiang Li), X.L., S.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The present study was funded by the Xinjiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences Youth Science and Technology Backbone Innovation Ability Training Project (xjnkq-2021009); the Program of Changji Prefecture Science and Technology Plan (2022Z05); and the Major Science and Technology Special Project of Xinjiang Autonomous Region (2021A02001-1).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Data sets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Chen, W.; Zhang, J.; Deng, X. Winter wheat yield improvement by genetic gain across different provinces in China. J. Integr. Agric. 2024, 23, 468–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giménez, V.D.; Serrago, R.A.; Abeledo, L.G.; Ciampitti, I.A.; Miralles, D.J. Comparative analysis of wheat and barley yield performance across temperate environments. Field Crops Res. 2024, 310, 109339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; Si, Z.; Wu, L.; Shen, X.; Gao, Y.; Duan, A. High-low seedbed cultivation drives the efficient utilization of key production resources and the improvement of wheat productivity in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 285, 108357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, L.; Quan, H.; Wu, L.; Zhang, X.; Feng, H.; Ding, D.; Siddique, K.H.M. Responses of winter wheat yield and water productivity to sowing time and plastic mulching in the Loess Plateau. Agric. Water Manag. 2023, 289, 108572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koppensteiner, L.J.; Kaul, H.-P.; Piepho, H.-P.; Barta, N.; Euteneuer, P.; Bernas, J.; Klimek-Kopyra, A.; Gronauer, A.; Neugschwandtner, R.W. Yield and yield components of facultative wheat are affected by sowing time, nitrogen fertilization and environment. Eur. J. Agron. 2022, 140, 126591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, S.-C.; Wang, T.-C.; Guan, X.-K.; Zhang, X. Effect of sowing time and seeding rate on yield components and water use efficiency of winter wheat by regulating the growth redundancy and physiological traits of root and shoot. Field Crops Res. 2018, 221, 166–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, P.; Wei, Q.; Zheng, L.; Rui, Z.; Niu, M.; Gao, C.; Guan, X.; Wang, T.; Xiong, S. Adaptability of wheat to future climate change: Effects of sowing date and sowing rate on wheat yield in three wheat production regions in the North China Plain. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 901, 165906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhu, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, J.; Xian, L.; Chu, J.; Liu, H.; Song, J.; Sun, Y.; Dai, Z. Delayed sowing increased dry matter accumulation during stem elongation in winter wheat by improving photosynthetic yield and nitrogen accumulation. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 151, 127004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amo, A.; Serikbay, D.; Song, L.; Chen, L.; Hu, Y.-G. Vernalization and photoperiod alleles greatly affected phenological and agronomic traits in bread wheat under autumn and spring sowing conditions. Crop Environ. 2022, 1, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, J.; He, Q.; Zhou, G.; Song, Y.; Guan, Y.; Xiao, X.; Sun, W.; Shi, Y.; Zhou, K.; Zhou, S.; et al. Effects of Sowing Date Variation on Winter Wheat Yield: Conclusions for Suitable Sowing Dates for High and Stable Yield. Agronomy 2023, 13, 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Z.-Z.; Cheng, S.; Fan, P.; Zhou, N.-B.; Xing, Z.-P.; Hu, Y.-J.; Xu, F.-F.; Guo, B.-W.; Wei, H.-Y.; Zhang, H.-C. Effects of sowing date and ecological points on yield and the temperature and radiation resources of semi-winter wheat. J. Integr. Agric. 2023, 22, 1366–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dong, S.; Zhang, X.; Chu, J.; Zheng, F.; Fei, L.; Dai, X.; He, M. Optimized seeding rate and nitrogen topdressing ratio for simultaneous improvement of grain yield and bread-making quality in bread wheat sown on different dates. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 102, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Arata, G.J.; Martínez, M.; Elguezábal, C.; Rojas, D.; Cristos, D.; Dinolfo, M.I.; Arata, A.F. Effects of sowing date, nitrogen fertilization, and Fusarium graminearum in an Argentinean bread wheat: Integrated analysis of disease parameters, mycotoxin contamination, grain quality, and seed deterioration. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 107, 104364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Z.; Yin, Y.; Li, B.; Zhong, K.; Liu, X.; Jiang, D.; Cao, W.; Dai, T. Optimizing planting density and nitrogen application to mitigate yield loss and improve grain quality of late-sown wheat under rice-wheat rotation. J. Integr. Agric. 2024, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, S.; Wang, Q.; Deng, M.; Su, L.; Wei, K.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, J. Assessing the influence of water fertilizer, and climate factors on seed cotton yield under mulched drip irrigation in Xinjiang Agricultural Regions. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 152, 127034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, Z.; Xie, C.; Yu, J.; Bai, W.; Pei, S.; Li, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhang, F.; Fan, J.; Yin, F. Effects of irrigation and nitrogen levels on yield and water-nitrogen-radiation use efficiency of drip-fertigated cotton in south Xinjiang of China. Field Crops Res. 2024, 308, 109280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GBT14607-1993; Method for Determination of Dry Gluten in Flour. Supervision A. G. A. o. Q. Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 1993.
- GB/T 14608-93; Method for Determination of Wet Gluten in Flour. Supervision A. G. A. o. Q. Standards Press of China: Beijing, China, 1993.
- AACC-54-21; Farinograph Method for Flour. Association A. C. C.: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1999.
- AACC-54-10; Physical Dough Test. Association A. C. C.: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1999.
- Martínez-Peña, R.; Rezzouk, F.Z.; Díez-Fraile, M.d.C.; Nieto-Taladriz, M.T.; Araus, J.L.; Aparicio, N.; Vicente, R. Genotype-by-environment interaction for grain yield and quality traits in durum wheat: Identification of ideotypes adapted to the Spanish region of Castile and León. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 151, 126951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ul-Allah, S.; Hussain, S.; Mumtaz, R.; Naeem, M.; Sattar, A.; Sher, A.; Ijaz, M.; Azeem, A.; Hassan, Z.; Ahmad, K.; et al. Phenotypic characterization of wheat germplasm for heritability and dissection of association among post anthesis traits under variable sowing dates. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2023, 35, 102578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Padovan, G.; Martre, P.; Semenov, M.A.; Masoni, A.; Bregaglio, S.; Ventrella, D.; Lorite, I.J.; Santos, C.; Bindi, M.; Ferrise, R.; et al. Understanding effects of genotype × environment × sowing window interactions for durum wheat in the Mediterranean basin. Field Crops Res. 2020, 259, 107969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, H.; Zhang, X.; Chen, S.; Pei, D.; Liu, C. Effects of harvest and sowing time on the performance of the rotation of winter wheat–summer maize in the North China Plain. Ind. Crops Prod. 2007, 25, 239–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bai, L.; Li, L.; Lian, Y.-H.; Wang, Z.-Q.; Xin, Z.-Y.; Lin, T.-B.; Ren, Y.-Z. Effects of sowing date on growth period, yield, and quality-related traits of different genotypic wheat varieties. Chin. J. Ecol. 2021, 40, 3135–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, X.; Zhou, X.; Liu, X.; Zhong, W.; Wang, X.; Ju, Z.; Yin, Y.; Xin, Q.; Liu, N.; Liu, X.; et al. Structural and physicochemical effects on the starch quality of the high-quality wheat genotype caused by delayed sowing. Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1389745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sattar, A.; Nanda, G.; Singh, G.; Jha, R.K.; Bal, S.K. Responses of phenology, yield attributes, and yield of wheat varieties under different sowing times in Indo-Gangetic Plains. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1224334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, Y.; Cao, Y.; Ma, H.; Qi, P.; Wei, Y.; Fan, G.; Zheng, T. Effects of Sowing Date on Storage Protein in Wheat Grain and Processing Quality. J. Nucl. Agric. Sci. 2023, 37, 811–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Effects of sowing date on protein content and wet gluten content of winter wheat (a,c) and spring wheat (b,d). Note: * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01.
Figure 1.
Effects of sowing date on protein content and wet gluten content of winter wheat (a,c) and spring wheat (b,d). Note: * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01.
Figure 2.
Effects of sowing date on gluten index of winter wheat (a) and spring wheat (b). Note: * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01.
Figure 2.
Effects of sowing date on gluten index of winter wheat (a) and spring wheat (b). Note: * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01.
Figure 3.
Effects of sowing date on stretch characteristics of winter wheat (a–c) and spring wheat (d–f). * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01, *** indicates p < 0.005.
Figure 3.
Effects of sowing date on stretch characteristics of winter wheat (a–c) and spring wheat (d–f). * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01, *** indicates p < 0.005.
Table 1.
Wheat yield for winter wheat under different sowing dates.
| Sowing Date | Variety | Ears (105/hm2) | Grain Number | 1000-Grain Mass (g) | Yield (kg/hm2) | Yield Change % (Compared to B1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | X17 | 46.13 ± 7.70 a | 42.23 ± 0.95 bc | 43.50 ± 1.27 bcde | 9911.13 ± 1379.65 a | / |
| X18 | 44.93 ± 8.68 a | 39.30 ± 1.05 cd | 40.84 ± 4.77 de | 8361.13 ± 1053.61 ab | / | |
| X22 | 47.18 ± 4.65 a | 35.50 ± 1.11 e | 39.83 ± 0.57 f | 8416.68 ± 192.21 ab | / | |
| X41 | 34.82 ± 7.22 ab | 46.47 ± 1.07 a | 43.20 ± 2.46 bcde | 6316.68 ± 797.39 bcd | / | |
| Average | 43.27 ± 8.03 a | 40.88 ± 4.29 a | 41.84 ± 2.87 b | 8251.41 ± 1566.24 a | / | |
| B2 | X17 | 39.27 ± 5.20 ab | 41.93 ± 0.54 bc | 48.16 ± 0.61 abcd | 9572.24 ± 525.03 a | 3.42 ↓ |
| X18 | 38.73 ± 4.54 ab | 37.00 ± 0.70 de | 49.81 ± 2.02 ab | 8183.35 ± 900.16 abc | 2.13 ↓ | |
| X22 | 45.33 ± 6.23 a | 34.33 ± 1.01 e | 52.90 ± 1.73 a | 7777.79 ± 667.78 abc | 7.59 ↓ | |
| X41 | 27.07 ± 1.11 b | 43.37 ± 0.86 b | 49.42 ± 6.53 abc | 6050.01 ± 490.75 cd | 4.22 ↓ | |
| Average | 37.60 ± 7.98 a | 39.16 ± 3.87 a | 50.07 ± 3.53 a | 7895.85 ± 1429.79 a | 4.31 ↓ | |
| B3 | X17 | 37.09 ± 5.75 ab | 43.83 ± 1.74 ab | 41.91 ± 0.87 cde | 8627.80 ± 538.60 a | 12.95 ↓ |
| X18 | 47.27 ± 5.28 ab | 34.97 ± 1.16 e | 37.85 ± 0.89 f | 7805.57 ± 831.56 abc | 6.64 ↓ | |
| X22 | 42.44 ± 3.51 ab | 31.30 ± 0.80 f | 38.75 ± 0.77 f | 7694.56 ± 532.38 abc | 8.58 ↓ | |
| X41 | 31.38 ± 3.70 ab | 41.53 ± 0.67 bc | 40.42 ± 1.46 ef | 5350.01 ± 332.92 d | 15.30 ↓ | |
| Average | 39.55 ± 7.36 a | 37.91 ± 5.33 a | 39.73 ± 1.85 b | 7369.90 ± 1369.27 a | 10.68 ↓ | |
| F value | S | 11.101 *** | 25.808 *** | 50.459 *** | 4.148 * | |
| V | 3.115 | 196.441 *** | 0.734 | 32.529 *** | ||
| S × V | 0.919 | 7.541 *** | 1.854 | 0.247 |
Note: Significant differences between different treatments of different lowercase letters. * indicates the level of significance, * indicates p < 0.05, *** indicates p < 0.005. ↓ indicates yield decreased as compared to B1.
Table 2.
Wheat yield for spring wheat under different sowing dates.
| Sowing Date | Variety | Ears (105/hm2) | Grain Number | 1000-Grain Mass (g) | Yield (kg/hm2) | Yield Change (Compared to B4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | N16 | 41.64 ± 2.79 abcd | 32.53 ± 5.19 a | 49.35 ± 2.90 abc | 6616.68 ± 220.48 bcde | 40.98 ↓ |
| Y15 | 34.73 ± 9.03 bcde | 27.07 ± 4.91 a | 54.38 ± 1.46 ab | 4883.34 ± 405.52 de | 30.95 ↓ | |
| X37 | 29.91 ± 5.35 de | 32.20 ± 11.62 a | 62.39 ± 2.11 a | 5927.79 ± 294.55 cde | 23.95 ↓ | |
| X44 | 31.60 ± 4.06 de | 26.87 ± 4.38 a | 52.77 ± 3.00 ab | 5761.12 ± 864.48 cde | 34.24 ↓ | |
| Average | 34.47 ± 6.81 b | 29.67 ± 6.73 b | 54.72 ± 5.42 a | 5797.23 ± 778.66 b | 33.44 ↓ | |
| B2 | N16 | 27.96 ± 1.69 de | 35.17 ± 1.07 a | 48.17 ± 0.61 cd | 6294.46 ± 707.57 cde | 43.86 ↓ |
| Y15 | 25.93 ± 4.72 de | 38.43 ± 5.12 a | 49.81 ± 2.02 abc | 4750.01 ± 66.67 e | 32.85 ↓ | |
| X37 | 25.73 ± 2.46 de | 41.30 ± 12.73 a | 52.90 ± 1.73 ab | 5544.46 ± 735.29 de | 28.87 ↓ | |
| X44 | 21.73 ± 2.24 e | 36.37 ± 7.76 a | 49.43 ± 6.53 abc | 4927.79 ± 1209.03 de | 43.75 ↓ | |
| Average | 25.34 ± 3.48 c | 37.82 ± 7.16 a | 50.07 ± 3.63 b | 5379.18 ± 924.86 b | 38.03 ↓ | |
| B3 | N16 | 33.73 ± 1.47 cde | 40.37 ± 6.88 a | 47.87 ± 0.69 cd | 7088.90 ± 596.60 de | 43.86 ↓ |
| Y15 | 32.62 ± 6.84 de | 32.03 ± 9.38 a | 55.64 ± 2.55 ab | 5400.01 ± 1070.18 bcd | 32.85 ↓ | |
| X37 | 32.91 ± 2.54 de | 42.67 ± 7.66 a | 52.61 ± 1.00 ab | 5288.90 ± 356.42 de | 28.87 ↓ | |
| X44 | 25.49 ± 2.99 de | 46.13 ± 8.20 a | 47.16 ± 1.32 cd | 5083.34 ± 381.88 de | 43.75 ↓ | |
| Average | 31.19 ± 4.87 bc | 40.30 ± 8.77 a | 50.82 ± 3.88 ab | 5715.29 ± 1011.31 b | 34.38 ↓ | |
| B4 | N16 | 55.31 ± 7.26 a | 34.70 ± 1.31 a | 43.36 ± 1.13 d | 11,211.13 ± 965.85 a | / |
| Y15 | 50.89 ± 7.03 ab | 32.40 ± 2.62 a | 50.34 ± 0.66 abc | 7072.24 ± 619.44 bcd | / | |
| X37 | 52.56 ± 6.32 a | 31.53 ± 3.86 a | 51.92 ± 2.28 ab | 7794.46 ± 1250.60 bc | / | |
| X44 | 50.04 ± 10.55 ab | 34.97 ± 1.80 a | 47.34 ± 2.36 cd | 8761.13 ± 694.49 b | / | |
| Average | 52.20 ± 7.10 a | 33.40 ± 2.69 ab | 48.24 ± 3.72 b | 8709.74 ± 1810.63 a | / | |
| F value | S | 3.682 *** | 5.744 ** | 14.867 *** | 53.084 *** | |
| V | 52.620 * | 0.977 | 23.846 *** | 21.135 *** | ||
| S × V | 0.533 | 0.877 | 2.837 | 2.265 * |
Note: Significant differences between different treatments of different lowercase letters. * indicates the level of significance, * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01, *** indicates p < 0.005. ↓ indicates yield decreased as compared to B1.
Table 3.
The farinograph parameters of winter wheat under different sowing dates.
| Variety | Sowing Date | Absorption (%) | Formation Time (min) | Stability Time (min) | Softness (FU) | Powder Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| X17 | B1 | 63.82 ± 2.79 a | 2.77 ± 0.16 d | 1.72 ± 0.17 d | 107.41 ± 3.64 b | 36.78 ± 1.33 de |
| B2 | 65.44 ± 2.04 a | 3.05 ± 0.09 d | 2.04 ± 0.17 d | 78.84 ± 10.30 cd | 38.70 ± 1.38 de | |
| B3 | 64.41 ± 1.30 a | 2.94 ± 0.15 d | 2.16 ± 0.19 d | 86.19 ± 4.53 c | 38.55 ± 1.73 de | |
| X18 | B1 | 62.56 ± 2.41 a | 4.17 ± 0.15 c | 7.06 ± 0.15 c | 54.31 ± 3.77 de | 89.09 ± 1.57 c |
| B2 | 61.31 ± 2.18 a | 5.07 ± 0.12 a | 9.74 ± 0.46 a | 42.28 ± 2.91 ef | 134.67 ± 4.51 a | |
| B3 | 61.51 ± 2.05 a | 4.88 ± 0.11 a | 8.79 ± 0.21 b | 45.22 ± 1.76 ef | 124.31 ± 4.04 b | |
| X22 | B1 | 61.30 ± 3.10 a | 4.33 ± 0.21 bc | 6.67 ± 0.50 c | 54.52 ± 2.07 de | 89.48 ± 1.11 c |
| B2 | 61.71 ± 2.20 a | 4.63 ± 0.29 ab | 9.63 ± 0.31 ab | 41.69 ± 1.69 f | 127.74 ± 2.38 b | |
| B3 | 61.06 ± 2.88 a | 4.13 ± 0.15 c | 6.44 ± 0.41 c | 63.51 ± 2.39 d | 85.9 ± 1.54 c | |
| X41 | B1 | 61.90 ± 2.46 a | 2.15 ± 0.05 e | 1.87 ± 0.22 d | 123.75 ± 4.87 a | 34.70 ± 2.13 e |
| B2 | 63.28 ± 2.26 a | 2.91 ± 0.08 d | 2.37 ± 0.26 e | 89.12 ± 1.86 c | 47.95 ± 1.67 c | |
| B3 | 63.38 ± 1.82 a | 2.71 ± 0.10 d | 2.35 ± 0.23 d | 90.47 ± 1.39 c | 42.64 ± 0.81 cd | |
| Average | B1 | 62.40 ± 2.50 a | 3.36 ± 0.97 b | 4.33 ± 2.66 b | 85.00 ± 32.66 a | 62.51 ± 28.01 b |
| B2 | 63.77 ± 2.65 a | 3.92 ± 1.00 a | 5.92 ± 3.94 a | 70.98 ± 31.68 b | 86.01 ± 47.35 a | |
| B3 | 62.76 ± 2.30 a | 3.67 ± 0.93 ab | 4.94 ± 2.94 a | 71.35 ± 19.19 b | 74.10 ± 35.57 ab | |
| F value | S | 1.230 | 40.889 *** | 88.143 *** | 44.244 *** | 315.491 *** |
| V | 4.634 * | 427.299 *** | 1243.778 *** | 454.597 *** | 2759.831 *** | |
| V × S | 0.590 | 6.527 *** | 29.156 *** | 26.993 *** | 114.302 *** |
Note: Significant differences between different treatments of different lowercase letters. * indicates the level of significance, * indicates p < 0.05, *** indicates p < 0.005.
Table 4.
The farinograph parameters of spring wheat under different sowing dates.
| Variety | Sowing Date | Absorption (%) | Formation Time (min) | Stability Time (min) | Softness (FU) | Powder Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N16 | B1 | 61.58 ± 4.90 a | 4.04 ± 0.28 gh | 4.78 ± 0.51 ef | 76.33 ± 3.50 bcde | 75.07 ± 4.36 fg |
| B2 | 61.51 ± 1.86 a | 5.43 ± 0.40 def | 7.61 ± 0.62 de | 60.51 ± 2.71 f | 105.34 ± 4.95 bcd | |
| B3 | 61.48 ± 4.21 a | 5.96 ± 0.38 cdef | 7.42 ± 0.55 de | 61.44 ± 2.92 f | 102.08 ± 5.94 bcd | |
| B4 | 59.51 ± 2.93 a | 3.53 ± 0.40 h | 3.71 ± 0.27 f | 81.44 ± 6.93 bc | 58.52 ± 5.57 g | |
| Y15 | B1 | 61.63 ± 2.62 a | 3.80 ± 0.26 h | 5.16 ± 0.26 de | 78.62 ± 3.88 bcde | 76.07 ± 3.88 ef |
| B2 | 63.26 ± 3.06 a | 5.28 ± 0.27 ef | 6.71 ± 0.46 e | 68.26 ± 6.06 cdef | 96.63 ± 6.41 cd | |
| B3 | 61.79 ± 2.49 a | 5.02 ± 0.33 fg | 6.97 ± 0.29 de | 70.51 ± 3.93 bcdef | 92.51 ± 3.04 de | |
| B4 | 59.66 ± 2.23 a | 5.36 ± 0.27 ef | 7.43 ± 0.40 de | 72.98 ± 4.04 bcdef | 103.58 ± 6.12 bcd | |
| X37 | B1 | 63.95 ± 3.55 a | 5.07 ± 0.25 f | 5.14 ± 0.29 e | 103.11 ± 6.85 a | 76.19 ± 4.60 ef |
Note: Significant differences between different treatments of different lowercase letters.
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. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Liu, J.; Shen, Y.; Zeng, C.; Zhang, J.; Shi, S.; Xue, L.; Jia, Y.; Li, J.; Liang, X. Effects of Sowing Time on Yield and Quality of Winter and Spring Wheat Varieties. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062479
AMA Style
Liu J, Shen Y, Zeng C, Zhang J, Shi S, Xue L, Jia Y, Li J, Liang X. Effects of Sowing Time on Yield and Quality of Winter and Spring Wheat Varieties. Sustainability. 2025; 17(6):2479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062479
Chicago/Turabian StyleLiu, Jun, Yun Shen, Chaowu Zeng, Jinshan Zhang, Shubing Shi, Lihua Xue, Yonghong Jia, Jianjiang Li, and Xiaodong Liang. 2025. "Effects of Sowing Time on Yield and Quality of Winter and Spring Wheat Varieties" Sustainability 17, no. 6: 2479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062479
APA StyleLiu, J., Shen, Y., Zeng, C., Zhang, J., Shi, S., Xue, L., Jia, Y., Li, J., & Liang, X. (2025). Effects of Sowing Time on Yield and Quality of Winter and Spring Wheat Varieties. Sustainability, 17(6), 2479. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062479
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
