Abstract
Low accuracy planting uniformity affects yield. Seed meter type and forward speed typically interfere with the planting uniformity accuracy of motor-driven seeding systems. Two types of maize precision planters equipped with motor-driven planting systems are investigated in this study to ascertain the rule of planting uniformity in both simulated and field speeds. The simulated speed increases from 5 to 12 km/h at a 1 km/h interval in a laboratory environment. The test results show that the quality of feed index (QTFI) of the two planters decreased by 16.79% and 9.88%. This is primarily attributed to the increase in the miss index (MISS) by 11.62% and 9.70%, respectively. The field speed was set to four levels from 5 to 12 km/h in a field environment. The plant spacing scatter distribution results were analyzed, and the results of the two planters indicated that the average positive difference of the two planters linearly increased with the forward speed, and the negative difference of the two planters did not exhibit a linear correlation. The number of positive moving average points was 2.49 times greater than that of the negative moving average points of the finger pick-up maize precision planter, and 4.49 times in the air-suction maize precision planter. The results indicated that the increase of the positive difference of plant spacing is the major effect factor in the field planting uniformity of the two motor-driven maize precision planters. In addition, the plant spacing corresponded to the distribution frequency of the two planters in field was close to the target seed spacing of 25 cm with a max coefficient of variation (CV) of 21.55% and 20.66%, respectively, and those plant spacing values corresponded to 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, respectively. However, the multiples index (MUL) changed randomly affected by the increasing speed. The research results provide a direction for the optimization design of motor-driven maize precision planters. Keywords: electric drive metering, planting uniformity, maize precision planting, quality evaluation DOI: 10.25165/j.ijabe.20221505.5911 Citation: Yang S, Zhai C Y, Gao Y Y, Dou H J, Zhao X G, He Y K, et al. Planting uniformity performance of motor-driven maize precision seeding systems. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2022; 15(5): 101–108.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
As laboratory speed rose, feed quality fell 16.79% for one planter.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The test results show that the quality of feed index (QTFI) of the two planters decreased by 16.79% and 9.88%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
As laboratory speed rose, feed quality fell 9.88% for the other planter.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the quality of feed index (QTFI) of the two planters decreased by 16.79% and 9.88%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Miss index rose 11.62% for one planter.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increase in the miss index (MISS) by 11.62% and 9.70%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Miss index rose 9.70% for the other planter.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increase in the miss index (MISS) by 11.62% and 9.70%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Average positive spacing difference increased linearly with forward speed for both planters.
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the average positive difference of the two planters linearly increased with the forward speed”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Negative spacing difference had no linear correlation with forward speed.
Not reportedDirectionValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the negative difference of the two planters did not exhibit a linear correlation”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The finger pick-up planter had 2.49 times as many positive as negative moving average points.
- Material
- finger pick-up maize precision plantere0
- Outcome
- positive moving average pointse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 2.49 timese0
- Comparator
- negative moving average pointse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of positive moving average points was 2.49 times greater than that of the negative moving average points of the finger pick-up maize precision planter”
Claim · model-written summary
The air-suction planter had 4.49 times as many positive as negative moving average points.
- Material
- air-suction maize precision plantere0
- Outcome
- positive moving average pointse1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Value
- 4.49 timese0
- Comparator
- negative moving average pointse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“4.49 times in the air-suction maize precision planter”
e1“positive moving average points was 2.49 times greater than that of the negative moving average points”
Claim · model-written summary
Positive spacing difference was identified as the main factor affecting field planting uniformity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increase of the positive difference of plant spacing is the major effect factor in the field planting uniformity”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The first planter had a maximum spacing coefficient of variation of 21.55%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“max coefficient of variation (CV) of 21.55% and 20.66%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The second planter had a maximum spacing coefficient of variation of 20.66%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“max coefficient of variation (CV) of 21.55% and 20.66%”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The first planter had a peak spacing frequency at (24.69±0.63) cm.
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”
Claim · model-written summary
The second planter had a peak spacing frequency at (25.63±0.32) cm.
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”
Claim · model-written summary
The multiples index varied randomly with increasing speed.
Not reportedValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“multiples index (MUL) changed randomly affected by the increasing speed”
t0“maize”