Plant Type Suitable for Mechanized Transplanting of Broccoli in Ningxia
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Materials
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Determination of Indicators
2.3.1. Plant Type Indexes
2.3.2. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)
2.4. Data Statistics and Analysis
3. Regression Analysis Results
3.1. Establishment of Regression Model
3.2. Regression Analysis
3.2.1. Results of Variance Analysis of Substrate Scattering Rate and Plant Height Models
3.2.2. Variance Analysis of Stem Diameter and Canopy Diameter Models
3.2.3. Analysis of Variance of Stem Inclination Angle and Plant Type Cone Angle Models
3.3. Analysis of Response Surfaces for the Interaction Effects of Various Factors
3.3.1. Analysis of Substrate Loss Rate
3.3.2. Analysis of Plant Height, Stem Diameter, and Canopy Diameter
3.3.3. Analysis of Stem Inclination Angle and Plant Type Cone Angle
3.4. Optimization Results and Verification
3.4.1. Optimization Parameters
3.4.2. Model Verification Test
3.5. Correlation Analysis Results
4. Discussion
4.1. The Interaction Effect Between Variety, Seedling Age, and Plug Tray Specification
4.2. The Correlation Mechanism Between Seedling Plant Type Characteristics and Mechanical Transplanting Quality
4.3. Prediction Results and Rationality of the Optimal Parameter Combination
4.4. Consistency Between Verification Test Results and Model Outcomes
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Syed, R.U.; Moni, S.S.; Break, M.K.B.; Khojali, W.M.A.; Jafar, M.; Alshammari, M.D.; Abdelsalam, K.; Taymour, S.; Alreshidi, K.S.M.A.; Taha, M.M.E.; et al. Broccoli: A Multi-Faceted Vegetable for Health: An In-Depth Review of Its Nutritional Attributes, Antimicrobial Abilities, and Anti-inflammatory Properties. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wang, L.; Luo, J. Vegetable supply chain integration: The case of a trinity cooperative in China CASE STUDY. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2019, 22, 767–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhen, Y.; Qian, W.; Hu, W.; Yu, J. Study on Inclusive Development Strategies of China’s Agricultural and Food Systems. Eng. Sci. China 2023, 4, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W.; Tian, S.; Wang, Q.; Jiang, H. Key Technologies of Plug Tray Seedling Transplanters in Protected Agriculture: A Review. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grande, G.; Hidalgo-Reyes, M.; Cruz, P.; Lopez, N. Physical–Mechanical Properties of Tomato Seedlings for the Design and Optimization of Automatic Transplanters. Agriengineering 2025, 7, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallegos-Cedillo, V.M.; Nájera, C.; Gruda, N.S.; Signore, A.; Gallegos, J.; Rodriguez, R.; Gilabert, G.E.; Fernandez, J.A. An in-depth analysis of sustainable practices in vegetable seedlings nurseries: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 334, 113342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.; Lai, H.; Lin, D.; Chen, B. The Influence of Winter and Spring Temperature on the Yield of Staple Vegetables (Cabbage, Chinese Cabbage, and Cauliflower). Mingdao J. 2011, 1, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, H.; Yang, D.; Xie, H. The Effect of Supplementary Irrigation Levels on Yield, Quality and Topsoil Moisture Dynamics of Open-Field Broccoli in the Southern Ningxia Mountainous Area. China Cucurbits Veg. 2021, 34, 72–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magar, A.P.; Nandede, B.M.; Chilur, R.; Gaikwad, B.B.; Khadatar, A. Optimization of growing media and pot size for vegetable seedlings grown in cylindrical paper pots using response surface methodology. J. Plant Nutr. 2022, 45, 1712–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ceglie, F.G.; Bustamante, M.A.; Ben Amara, M.; Tittarelli, F. The Challenge of Peat Substitution in Organic Seedling Production: Optimization of Growing Media Formulation through Mixture Design and Response Surface Analysis. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0128600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Han, L.; Xiang, D.; Xu, Q.; Du, X.; Ma, G.; Mao, H. Development of Simplified Seedling Transplanting Device for Supporting Efficient Production of Vegetable Raw Materials. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 10022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, S.; Dongyan, Y.; Al, C.L.E. Current Situation and Development Suggestions of Vegetable Seedling Industry in Ningxia. North. Hortic. 2023, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirel, C.; Kabutey, A.; Herák, D.; Sedlacek, A.; Mizera, C.; Dajbych, O. Using Box–Behnken Design Coupled with Response Surface Methodology for Optimizing Rapeseed Oil Expression Parameters under Heating and Freezing Conditions. Processes 2022, 10, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Z.; Song, L.; Liu, Y.; Han, F.; Liu, W. Electrophysiological, Morphologic, and Transcriptomic Profiling of the Ogura-CMS, DGMS and Maintainer Broccoli Lines. Plants 2022, 11, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos Santos, L.W.O.; Da Silva Ribeiro, J.E.; Lopes, A.S.; Targino, V.A.; Neto, A.P.; Soars, V.; Henschel, J.M.; Batista, D.S.; Dias, T.J. Effect of Nitrogen:Potassium Fertilization Ratios and Biostimulant Application on Broccoli Plants. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2022, 22, 4857–4867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blok, P.M.; van Henten, E.J.; van Evert, F.K.; Kootstra, G. Image-based size estimation of broccoli heads under varying degrees of occlusion. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 208, 213–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Yang, M.; Tseng, H.; Hsu, Y.; Sung, Y.; Chen, W. Single-plant broccoli growth monitoring using deep learning with UAV imagery. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2023, 207, 107739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khuri, A.I.; Cornell, J.A. Response surfaces. In Analyses, Response Surfaces Designs and Analyses; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Teran, H.S.; Wu, M.C.; Engel, S.M.; Wu, M.C.; Engel, S.M.; Kosorok, M.R. Goodness-Of-Fit Test for Nonparametric Regression Models: Smoothing Spline ANOVA Models as Example. Comput. Stat. Data 2018, 122, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alumni Teknik Sipil, U.V.J.T. Analisis algoritma dan karakteristik kecepatan kendaraan di ruas jalan arteri kota surabaya. J. Tek. Sipil 2019, 15, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, D.; Han, F.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Huang, J.; Li, Z. Construction and Identification of Cold Tolerance in Different Broccoli Cultivars at the Seedling Stage. Agronomy 2024, 14, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.T.; Gao, F.; Wu, Y.B.; Yang, Y.; Song, R.Q.; Sun, X.; Lu, J.S. Optimization of Brackish Water Reverse Osmosis Desalination Process Based on Response Surface Methodology. China Environ. Sci. 2024, 44, 3151–3159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, K.; Lou, J.; Li, C.; Li, J. Experimental Evaluation of Rootstock Clamping Device for Inclined Inserted Grafting of Melons. Agriculture 2021, 11, 736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Criscione, K.S.; Owen, J.S.; Fields, J.S. Stratified soilless substrates decrease the vertical gravitational water gradient altering Helianthus root morphology. Plant Soil 2025, 514, 287–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallegos Cedillo, V.M.; Nájera, C.; Signore, A.; Ochoa, J.; Gallegos, J.; Egea Gilabert, C.; Gruda, N.S.; Fernandez, J.A. Analysis of global research on vegetable seedlings and transplants and their impacts on product quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2024, 104, 4950–4965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heather, D.W.; Sieczka, J.B. Effect of Seed Size and Cultivar on Emergence and Stand Establishment of Broccoli in Crusted Soil. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1991, 116, 946–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasmin, A.; Hossain, M.; Rahman, M. Growth and Yield of Broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica) Impacted by Seedling Age and Mulching Materials. Fundam. Appl. Agric. 2021, 6, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khadatkar, A.; Magar, A.P.; Sawant, C.P.; Modi, R.U. Development and testing of automatic seedling extractor in robotic transplanter using mechatronics for nursery seedlings. Discov. Appl. Sci. 2024, 6, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jin, X.; Zhu, X.; Xiao, L.; Li, M.; Li, S.; Zhao, B.; Ji, J. YOLO-RDS: An efficient algorithm for monitoring the uprightness of seedling transplantation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2024, 218, 108654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Z.; Gao, A.; Ma, W.; Jiang, H.; Cao, D.; Wang, W.; Qian, J.; Xu, L. Modeling the Mechanical Properties of Root–Substrate Interaction with a Transplanter Using Artificial Neural Networks. Agriculture 2024, 14, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guantao Xuan, Y.S.J.H. Morphological and mechanical characteristics of sweet potato seedlings transplanted mechanically. In Proceedings of the 2017 ASABE Annual International Meeting, Spokane, WA, USA, 16–19 July 2017; American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, L.; Xu, H.; Zhou, Y.; Shen, J.; Yu, G.; Hu, H.; Miao, Y. Kinematic synthesis and simulation of a vegetable pot seedling transplanting mechanism with four exact task poses. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2023, 16, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wenneck, G.S.; Saath, R.; Rezende, R.; Vila, V.; Andrean, A.F.B.A.; Souza Terass, D. Cucumber seedlings production: Tray size impact on development. Rev. Bras. Eng. Biossistemas 2022, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aragie, E.; Alemayehu, M.; Abate, A. Influences of Seedling Age and Variety on the Growth and Bulb Yield of Onion in Northwest Ethiopia. Int. J. Agron. 2023, 2023, 9132446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jankauskienė, J.; Laužikė, K. Effect of Sweet Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Seedling Age and Cultivation Method on Seedling Quality, Photosynthetic Parameters and Productivity. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oviedo, V.R.S.; Minami, K. Effect of tray cell size and seedling age on italian type tomatoes production. Bragantia 2012, 71, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, H.J.; Park, Y.G.; Park, J.E.; Jeong, B.R. Effect of Cell Size on Growth and Development of Plug Seedlings of Three Indigenous Medicinal Plants. Prot. Hortic. Plant Fact. 2014, 23, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dihingia, P.C.; Kumar, G.V.P.; Sarma, P.K.; Neog, P. Production of Soil Block Seedlings in Plug Trays for Mechanical Transplanting. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2017, 23, 471–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tatsuno, J.; Tajima, K.; Kato, M. Automatic Transplanting Equipment for Chain Pot Seedlings in Shaft Tillage Cultivation. J. Robot. Mechatron. 2022, 34, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, B.; Wu, H.; Zhu, H.; Liang, J.; Miao, Y.; Cui, Y.; Song, W. Current Status and Analysis of Key Technologies in Automatic Transplanters for Vegetables in China. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaikh, N.Y.; Alam, M.A.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Abdullah AI Mamun, M.; Islam, A.S. Effect of Seeding Density on Mat-Type Seedling Quality for Mechanical Transplanting in Dry Season Rice. Agric. Sci. 2021, 12, 1231–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Q.; Jiang, W.; Qiu, S.; Xing, Z.; Hu, Y.; Guo, B.; Liu, G.; Gao, H.; Zhang, H. Effect of wide-narrow row arrangement in mechanical pot-seedling transplanting and plant density on yield formation and grain quality of japonica rice. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 1197–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeong, H.W.; Kim, H.M.; Lee, H.R.; Kim, H.M.; Lee, H.R.; Kim, H.M.; Hwang, S.J. Growth of Astragalus membranaceus during Nursery Period as Affected by Different Plug Tray Cell Size, Number of Seeds per Cell, Irrigation Interval, and EC Level of Nutrient Solution. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2020, 38, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaymak, H.C.; Yarali, F.; Guvenc, I. Effect of transplant age on growth and yield of broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2009, 12, 972–975. [Google Scholar]
- Yao, M.; Hu, J.; Liu, W.; Shi, J.; Jin, Y.; Lv, J.; Sun, Z.; Wang, C. Precise Servo-Control System of a Dual-Axis Positioning Tray Conveying Device for Automatic Transplanting Machine. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]











| Tray Specification | Tray Ruler (mm·mm·mm) | Tray Cell Arrangement | Single-Cell Volume (cm3) | Number of Cells (Holes·m2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 72 | 540 ± 2 × 280 ± 2 × 45 ± 1 | 6 × 9 | 40 ± 0.8 | 476 ± 1.53 |
| 98 | 540 ± 3 × 280 ± 1 × 45 ± 1 | 7 × 14 | 25 ± 0.6 | 648 ± 2.47 |
| 128 | 540 ± 2 × 280 ± 2 × 45 ± 0.5 | 8 × 16 | 20 ± 0.3 | 846 ± 4.87 |
| Level | Variety | Seedling Age | Tray Specification |
|---|---|---|---|
| −1 | 0 | 30 | 72 |
| 0 | 1 | 35 | 98 |
| 1 | 2 | 40 | 128 |
| Test No. | A | B | C | Substrate Loss Rate Y1 (%) | Plant Height Y2 (cm) | Stem Diameter Y3 (mm) | Canopy Diameter Y4 (mm) | Stem Inclination Angle Y5 (°) | Plant Type Cone Angle Y6 (°) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 0.61 | 16.84 | 2.78 | 204.6 | 80.06 | 42.26 |
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.59 | 14.43 | 2.27 | 145.5 | 71.53 | 38.75 |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.48 | 14.1 | 2.57 | 177.1 | 68.08 | 45.34 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 16.09 | 2.44 | 130.47 | 76.67 | 39.43 |
| 5 | −1 | 1 | 0 | 0.57 | 13.1 | 2.41 | 179.5 | 73.75 | 39.59 |
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 15.3 | 2.4 | 130.47 | 76.67 | 37 |
| 7 | 0 | −1 | 1 | 0.62 | 12.83 | 2.05 | 106.91 | 73.9 | 29.88 |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.15 | 16.09 | 2.44 | 130.47 | 75.4 | 39.43 |
| 9 | 1 | 0 | −1 | 0.75 | 15.52 | 2.42 | 189.4 | 75.66 | 35.71 |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 15.5 | 2.42 | 118.47 | 75.5 | 39.35 |
| 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.23 | 16.1 | 2.36 | 118.04 | 76.67 | 39.43 |
| 12 | −1 | −1 | 0 | 0.58 | 10.88 | 2.06 | 110.23 | 65.07 | 33.22 |
| 13 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.55 | 14.6 | 2.14 | 146.39 | 70.68 | 38.5 |
| 14 | −1 | 0 | −1 | 0.46 | 14.89 | 2.36 | 158.27 | 73.25 | 35.71 |
| 15 | −1 | 0 | 1 | 1.28 | 14 | 2.02 | 150.9 | 66.89 | 32.77 |
| 16 | 1 | −1 | 0 | 0.25 | 11.3 | 2.08 | 129.73 | 73.74 | 30.94 |
| 17 | 0 | −1 | −1 | 0.28 | 13.42 | 2.13 | 102.44 | 76.96 | 30.5 |
| Index | Source | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substrate Loss Rate Y1 (%) | Model | 1.22 | 9 | 0.1354 | 52.32 | <0.0001 |
| A | 0.1085 | 1 | 0.1085 | 41.92 | 0.0003 | |
| B | 0.0305 | 1 | 0.0305 | 11.79 | 0.0109 | |
| C | 0.1104 | 1 | 0.1104 | 42.69 | 0.0003 | |
| AB | 0.0144 | 1 | 0.0144 | 5.57 | 0.0504 | |
| AC | 0.2598 | 1 | 0.2598 | 100.41 | <0.0001 | |
| BC | 0.0318 | 1 | 0.0318 | 12.29 | 0.0099 | |
| A2 | 0.2538 | 1 | 0.2538 | 98.08 | <0.0001 | |
| B2 | 0.0005 | 1 | 0.0005 | 0.1794 | 0.6846 | |
| C2 | 0.3583 | 1 | 0.3583 | 138.48 | <0.0001 | |
| Residual | 0.0181 | 7 | 0.0026 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 0.0130 | 3 | 0.004 | 3.38 | 0.1349 | |
| Pure Error | 0.0051 | 4 | 0.0013 | |||
| Cor Total | 1.24 | 16 | ||||
| R2 = 0.9854; Adj R2 = 0.9665; Pred R2 = 0.8236 | ||||||
| Plant Height Y2 (mm) | Model | 44.69 | 9 | 4.97 | 44.54 | <0.0001 |
| A | 0.8739 | 1 | 0.8739 | 7.84 | 0.0265 | |
| B | 12.25 | 1 | 12.25 | 109.84 | <0.0001 | |
| C | 2.89 | 1 | 2.89 | 25.94 | 0.0014 | |
| AB | 0.0841 | 1 | 0.0841 | 0.7543 | 0.4139 | |
| AC | 0.0003 | 1 | 0.0003 | 0.003 | 0.9577 | |
| BC | 0.8260 | 1 | 0.8260 | 7.41 | 0.0297 | |
| A2 | 10.11 | 1 | 10.11 | 90.64 | <0.0001 | |
| B2 | 15.55 | 1 | 15.55 | 139.47 | <0.0001 | |
| C2 | 1.17 | 1 | 1.17 | 10.53 | 0.0142 | |
| Residual | 0.7804 | 7 | 0.1115 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 0.1835 | 3 | 0.0612 | 0.4055 | 0.7551 | |
| Pure Error | 0.5969 | 4 | 0.1492 | |||
| Cor Total | 45.47 | 16 | ||||
| R2 = 0.9828; Adj R2 = 0.9608; Pred R2 = 0.9141 | ||||||
| Index | Source | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stem Diameter Y3 (mm) | Model | 0.6942 | 9 | 0.0771 | 106.82 | <0.0001 |
| A | 0.0165 | 1 | 0.0165 | 22.91 | 0.002 | |
| B | 0.3517 | 1 | 0.3517 | 487.04 | <0.0001 | |
| C | 0.183 | 1 | 0.183 | 253.46 | <0.0001 | |
| AB | 0.0049 | 1 | 0.0049 | 6.79 | 0.0352 | |
| AC | 0.0009 | 1 | 0.0009 | 1.24 | 0.3017 | |
| BC | 0.0459 | 1 | 0.0459 | 63.54 | <0.0001 | |
| A2 | 0.044 | 1 | 0.044 | 60.97 | 0.0001 | |
| B2 | 0.0037 | 1 | 0.0037 | 5.16 | 0.0573 | |
| C2 | 0.0172 | 1 | 0.0172 | 23.78 | 0.0018 | |
| Residual | 0.0051 | 7 | 0.0007 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 0.0006 | 3 | 0.0002 | 0.171 | 0.9108 | |
| Pure Error | 0.0045 | 4 | 0.0011 | |||
| Cor Total | 0.6992 | 16 | ||||
| R2 = 0.9928; Adj R2 = 0.9835; Pred R2 = 0.9768 | ||||||
| Canopy Diameter Y4 (mm) | Model | 14,347.04 | 9 | 1594.12 | 36.96 | <0.0001 |
| A | 211.69 | 1 | 211.69 | 4.91 | 0.0623 | |
| B | 7975.91 | 1 | 7975.91 | 184.94 | <0.0001 | |
| C | 1378.39 | 1 | 1378.39 | 31.96 | 0.0008 | |
| AB | 119.90 | 1 | 119.90 | 2.78 | 0.1394 | |
| AC | 310.73 | 1 | 310.73 | 7.20 | 0.0313 | |
| BC | 980.60 | 1 | 980.60 | 22.74 | 0.0020 | |
| A2 | 2125.28 | 1 | 2125.28 | 49.28 | 0.0002 | |
| B2 | 5.00 | 1 | 5.00 | 0.1158 | 0.7436 | |
| C2 | 838.03 | 1 | 838.03 | 19.43 | 0.0031 | |
| Residual | 301.90 | 7 | 43.13 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 122.76 | 3 | 40.92 | 0.9137 | 0.5099 | |
| Pure Error | 179.14 | 4 | 44.78 | |||
| Cor Total | 14,648.94 | 16 | ||||
| R2 = 0.9794; Adj R2 = 0.9529; Pred R2 = 0.8470 | ||||||
| Index | Source | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stem Inclination Angle Y5 (°) | Model | 250.23 | 9 | 27.80 | 56.45 | <0.0001 |
| A | 10.80 | 1 | 10.80 | 21.92 | 0.0023 | |
| B | 1.40 | 1 | 1.40 | 2.85 | 0.1353 | |
| C | 65.72 | 1 | 65.72 | 133.43 | <0.0001 | |
| AB | 51.41 | 1 | 51.41 | 104.37 | <0.0001 | |
| AC | 0.5568 | 1 | 0.5568 | 1.13 | 0.3230 | |
| BC | 7.69 | 1 | 7.69 | 15.60 | 0.0055 | |
| A2 | 105.57 | 1 | 105.57 | 214.32 | <0.0001 | |
| B2 | 4.34 | 1 | 4.34 | 8.80 | 0.0209 | |
| C2 | 1.77 | 1 | 1.77 | 3.60 | 0.0995 | |
| Residual | 3.45 | 7 | 0.4926 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 1.66 | 3 | 0.5523 | 1.23 | 0.4073 | |
| Pure Error | 1.79 | 4 | 0.4478 | |||
| Cor Total | 253.68 | 16 | ||||
| R2 = 0.9864; Adj R2 = 0.9689; Pre R2 = 0.8846 | ||||||
| Plant Type Cone Angle Y6 (°) | Mode | 290.52 | 9 | 32.28 | 32.01 | <0.0001 |
| A | 11.52 | 1 | 11.52 | 11.43 | 0.0117 | |
| B | 211.58 | 1 | 211.58 | 209.81 | <0.0001 | |
| C | 2.29 | 1 | 2.29 | 2.27 | 0.1756 | |
| AB | 16.12 | 1 | 16.12 | 15.99 | 0.0052 | |
| AC | 8.42 | 1 | 8.42 | 8.35 | 0.0233 | |
| BC | 2.09 | 1 | 2.09 | 2.07 | 0.1932 | |
| A2 | 1.86 | 1 | 1.86 | 1.85 | 0.2162 | |
| B2 | 4.13 | 1 | 4.13 | 4.09 | 0.0827 | |
| C2 | 27.35 | 1 | 27.35 | 27.12 | 0.0012 | |
| Residual | 7.06 | 7 | 1.01 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 2.41 | 3 | 0.8026 | 0.6902 | 0.6039 | |
| Pure Error | 4.65 | 4 | 1.16 | |||
| Cor Total | 297.58 | 16 | ||||
| R2 = 0.9763; Adj R2 = 0.9458; Pred R2 = 0.8448 | ||||||
| Parameter | Substrate Loss Rate Y1 (%) | Plant Height Y2 (cm) | Stem Diameter Y3 (mm) | Canopy Diameter Y4 (mm) | Stem Inclination Angle Y5 (°) | Plant Type Cone Angle Y6 (°) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 (measured) | 0.28 | 13.2 | 2.24 | 107.01 | 77.1 | 37.5 |
| Predicted value 1 | 0.26 | 13.29 | 2.14 | 105.73 | 76.68 | 30.01 |
| RMSE | 0.022 | 0.122 | 0.1 | 1.268 | 0.427 | 7.49 |
| T2 (measured) | 0.3 | 13.93 | 2.33 | 98.23 | 76.17 | 38.72 |
| Predicted value 2 | 0.16 | 12.62 | 2.16 | 93.94 | 74.65 | 32.74 |
| RMSE | 0.141 | 1.283 | 0.171 | 4.247 | 1.456 | 5.966 |
| Treatment | Variety | Seedling Age | Tray Specification | Seedling Delivery Rate (%) | Seedling Loss Rate (%) | Mechanical Transplanting Qualification Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Hannai Youxiu | 30 | 72 | 100 | 6.5 ± 0.76 | 93.5 ± 0.76 |
| T2 | Hannai Youxiu | 30 | 98 | 100 | 2.5 ± 0.83 | 97.5 ± 0.83 |
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
Wang, X.; Tian, W.; Qin, X.; Liu, X.; Feng, H.; Sun, G. Plant Type Suitable for Mechanized Transplanting of Broccoli in Ningxia. Agronomy 2025, 15, 2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15122791
Wang X, Tian W, Qin X, Liu X, Feng H, Sun G. Plant Type Suitable for Mechanized Transplanting of Broccoli in Ningxia. Agronomy. 2025; 15(12):2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15122791
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Xulu, Wei Tian, Xiaojun Qin, Xiaomei Liu, Haiping Feng, and Guoqiang Sun. 2025. "Plant Type Suitable for Mechanized Transplanting of Broccoli in Ningxia" Agronomy 15, no. 12: 2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15122791
APA StyleWang, X., Tian, W., Qin, X., Liu, X., Feng, H., & Sun, G. (2025). Plant Type Suitable for Mechanized Transplanting of Broccoli in Ningxia. Agronomy, 15(12), 2791. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15122791
