Abstract
We investigated the influence of sowing date and seeding rate on protein composition and quality parameters in two winter spelt cultivars (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta L.) and one common winter wheat cultivar (Triticum aestivum ssp. vulgare L.). Wheat was grown during a 3 year experiment (2007-2010) at the Microplots Experimental Station in Puławy, Poland. The first experimental factor was the seeding rate: 300, 450 and 600 grains/m2. The second factor was the sowing date: optimal and delayed (2 weeks delayed versus optimal). The third factor was cultivar: two spelt cultivars (Rokosz and STH 8) and one common wheat cultivar (Sukces). Detailed analysis by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography of protein subunits revealed many significant differences between grain samples in relation to the tested sources of variation (sowing date, seeding rate and genotype). Delayed sowing and the lowest seeding rate slightly reduced the relative ratio of gliadins to glutenins, which points to a shift in the elastic properties of gluten proteins. However, neither sowing date nor seeding rate affected wet gluten, gluten index or sedimentation value (based on analysis of variance). These gluten quality parameters were affected only by the genotypes used and the year of cropping.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
Grain protein subunits differed significantly across sowing date, seeding rate and genotype.
- Taxon
- spelt and common wheat
Triticum aestivum_Locatie_De_Kruidhof.JPG?width=60)
Triticum speltat0 - Treatment
- sowing date, seeding rate and genotypee0
- Outcome
- protein subunitse0
- Direction
- differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Locatie_De_Kruidhof.JPG?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“protein subunits revealed many significant differences between grain samples in relation to the tested sources of variation (sowing date, seeding rate and genotype).”
t0“spelt and common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed sowing slightly reduced the relative gliadin to glutenin ratio.
- Taxon
- spelt and common wheatTriticum aestivumTriticum speltat0
- Treatment
- Delayed sowinge0
- Outcome
- relative ratio of gliadins to gluteninse0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Delayed sowing and the lowest seeding rate slightly reduced the relative ratio of gliadins to glutenins”
t0“spelt and common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest seeding rate slightly reduced the relative gliadin to glutenin ratio.
- Taxon
- spelt and common wheatTriticum aestivumTriticum speltat0
- Treatment
- lowest seeding ratee0
- Outcome
- relative ratio of gliadins to gluteninse0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Delayed sowing and the lowest seeding rate slightly reduced the relative ratio of gliadins to glutenins”
t0“spelt and common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Sowing date did not affect wet gluten, gluten index or sedimentation value.
- Taxon
- spelt and common wheatTriticum aestivumTriticum speltat0
- Treatment
- sowing datee0
- Outcome
- wet gluten, gluten index or sedimentation valuee0
- Direction
- neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“neither sowing date nor seeding rate affected wet gluten, gluten index or sedimentation value”
t0“spelt and common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Seeding rate did not affect wet gluten, gluten index or sedimentation value.
- Taxon
- spelt and common wheatTriticum aestivumTriticum speltat0
- Treatment
- seeding ratee0
- Outcome
- wet gluten, gluten index or sedimentation valuee0
- Direction
- neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“neither sowing date nor seeding rate affected wet gluten, gluten index or sedimentation value”
t0“spelt and common wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotype and cropping year affected the gluten quality parameters.
- Taxon
- spelt and common wheatTriticum aestivumTriticum speltat0
- Material
- genotypes usede0
- Outcome
- gluten quality parameterse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These gluten quality parameters were affected only by the genotypes used and the year of cropping.”
t0“spelt and common wheat”
The same questions in other papers
density · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →sowing time · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →density · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →sowing time · quality: protein · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
39 papers more in this group
See all 43 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.