Abstract
Precision planters are important machines in the regime of modern technological agriculture. Field conditions, seed metering system and machine operating parameters affect the pneumatic planter performance. The pneumatic planter was evaluated to determine the effect of three tillage levels (L1, L2, and L3) and four travel speeds (S1, S2*, S3 and S4). The sowing uniformity of the planter was observed with respect to the horizontal distribution of seeds within a row and described by using the precision index (Ip), the multiple index (Imult), the miss-seeding index (Imiss) and the quality of feed index (Iqf). The results revealed that the tillage levels (L) and travel speed (S) had a significant effect (p<0.05) on dependent variables. The maximum Imiss (22.12%) was observed at L1 and S4 whereas the maximum Imult was observed at L1 and S1. The mean values of missing-, multi-, quality- feed and precision indices were 5.14%, 5.833%, 89.03% and 17.85% at L3, respectively. The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively. The study showed that maize could be seeding within an acceptable precise range by bed-type pneumatic planter subjected to the proper seedbed preparation level. Keywords: sowing uniformity, pneumatic planter, tillage levels, travel speed DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20211401.5054 Citation: Ahmad F, Adeel M, Qiu B J, Ma J, Shoaib M, Aamir S, et al. Sowing uniformity of bed-type pneumatic maize planter at various seedbed preparation levels and machine travel speeds. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2021; 14(1): 165–171.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage level and travel speed significantly affected the sowing uniformity indices.
Zea maysNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The results revealed that the tillage levels (L) and travel speed (S) had a significant effect (p<0.05) on dependent variables.”
Claim · model-written summary
The maximum miss-seeding index was 22.12% at L1 and S4.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The maximum Imiss (22.12%) was observed at L1 and S4 whereas the maximum Imult was observed at L1 and S1.”
Claim · model-written summary
The maximum multiple index occurred at L1 and S1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The maximum Imiss (22.12%) was observed at L1 and S4 whereas the maximum Imult was observed at L1 and S1.”
Claim · model-written summary
At L3, mean missing index was 5.14%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of missing-, multi-, quality- feed and precision indices were 5.14%, 5.833%, 89.03% and 17.85% at L3, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At L3, mean multiple index was 5.833%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of missing-, multi-, quality- feed and precision indices were 5.14%, 5.833%, 89.03% and 17.85% at L3, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At L3, mean quality feed index was 89.03%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of missing-, multi-, quality- feed and precision indices were 5.14%, 5.833%, 89.03% and 17.85% at L3, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At L3, mean precision index was 17.85%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of missing-, multi-, quality- feed and precision indices were 5.14%, 5.833%, 89.03% and 17.85% at L3, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S1, mean multi-index was 17.59%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S2, mean multi-index was 14.44%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S3, mean multi-index was 12.40%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S4, mean multi-index was 10.18%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S1, mean quality feed index was 74.07%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S2, mean quality feed index was 75.92%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S3, mean quality feed index was 75.74%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S4, mean quality feed index was 74.07%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S1, mean precision index was 21.47%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S2, mean precision index was 23.26%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S3, mean precision index was 25.51%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
At S4, mean precision index was 28.53%.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize”
e0“The mean values of multi-index 17.59%, 14.44%, 12.40% and 10.18%, quality feed index 74.07%, 75.92%, 75.74% and 74.07% and precision indices 21.47%, 23.26%, 25.51% and 28.53% were at S1, S2, S3 and S4, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
With proper seedbed preparation, the planter can seed maize within an acceptable precision range.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study showed that maize could be seeding within an acceptable precise range by bed-type pneumatic planter subjected to the proper seedbed preparation level.”