Claim · model-written summary
The second planter had a peak spacing frequency at (25.63±0.32) cm.
Zea maysNot reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentComparatorSettingDirectionQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“max distribution frequency of the two planters at the four level field speeds were (24.69±0.63) cm and (25.63±0.32) cm”
t0“maize”
Title
Planting uniformity performance of motor-driven maize precision seeding systems
Shuo Yang; Changyuan Zhai; Yuanyuan Gao; et al. International journal of agricultural and biological engineering 2022. doi:10.25165/j.ijabe.20221505.5911
Other claims from this paper (13)
- Method / resource As laboratory speed rose, feed quality fell 16.79% for one planter.
- Method / resource As laboratory speed rose, feed quality fell 9.88% for the other planter.
- Method / resource Miss index rose 11.62% for one planter.
- Method / resource Miss index rose 9.70% for the other planter.
- Method / resource Average positive spacing difference increased linearly with forward speed for both planters.
- Method / resource Negative spacing difference had no linear correlation with forward speed.
- Method / resource The finger pick-up planter had 2.49 times as many positive as negative moving average points.
- Method / resource The air-suction planter had 4.49 times as many positive as negative moving average points.
- Mechanism Positive spacing difference was identified as the main factor affecting field planting uniformity.
- Method / resource The first planter had a maximum spacing coefficient of variation of 21.55%.
- Method / resource The second planter had a maximum spacing coefficient of variation of 20.66%.
- Method / resource The first planter had a peak spacing frequency at (24.69±0.63) cm.
- Method / resource The multiples index varied randomly with increasing speed.