Experimental Study on the Soil Conditions for Rapeseed Transplanting for Blanket Seedling Combined Transplanter
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Introduction to the Joint Transplantation Operation of Rapeseed Blanket-Shaped Seedlings
2.2. Soil Physical Parameters
2.2.1. Soil Preparation
2.2.2. Soil Compression Test
2.3. Transplanter Operation Soil Parameter Assessment
2.3.1. Measurement of Soil Firmness
2.3.2. Measurement of Soil Moisture Content and Soil Bulk Density
2.4. Experimental Study on the Soil Conditions Suitable for Furrow Cutting and Transplanting
2.4.1. Soil Preparation
2.4.2. Seedbed Preparation
2.4.3. Seedling Sampling and Measurement
2.4.4. Transplantation and Covering
2.4.5. Seedling Management and Observation
2.4.6. Post-Transplantation Statistics
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Soil Physical Parameters
3.2. Transplanter Operation Soil Parameter Assessment
3.2.1. Soil Firmness Analysis
3.2.2. Soil Moisture Content and Soil Bulk Density Analyses
3.3. Experimental Study on the Soil Conditions Suitable for Furrow Cutting and Transplanting
4. Conclusions
- To identify the primary soil physical parameters affecting growth after mechanical transplanting with the rapeseed seedling transplanter, the relationships between the soil moisture content, soil firmness, and soil bulk density were studied through soil plate penetration tests. A correlation between soil firmness and soil bulk density was established, allowing for analysis and the determination that the key soil physical parameters for subsequent research are primarily the soil moisture content and soil firmness.
- To understand the impact of the combined transplanter operation on soil, the changes in soil firmness, soil bulk density, and soil moisture content before and after the operation were detected and analysed. The results indicated that the transplanter operation process had a compacting effect on the soil. Based on these findings, the soil parameters were determined for subsequent rapeseed seedling furrow cutting transplanting experiments: soil moisture contents of 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30% and soil firmness values of 300 kPa, 400 kPa, and 500 kPa.
- To explore the suitable soil parameters for rapeseed seedling transplantation, the micro-environment around the roots and stems (30–50 mm) was selected to study the impact of changes in the soil physical parameters on rapeseed growth. Based on the results of Conclusions (1) and (2), growth experiments with rapeseed blanket seedlings were conducted using the furrow cutting transplanting principle. These findings indicate that at the early stages after rapeseed transplantation, the soil moisture content significantly influences rapeseed vitality. As the soil moisture content increased, the slow-growing seedling period shortened, and the effect on vitality improved. In contrast, the influence of soil firmness was relatively small during this period. In the later stages of growth after seedling establishment, soil firmness had a greater impact. Specifically, when the soil moisture content was less than 20%, increasing the soil firmness to 500 kPa was beneficial for moisture retention and the growth of rapeseed plants. At a soil moisture content ranging from 20 to 25%, a soil firmness of 400 kPa was most suitable for ensuring rapeseed vitality and late-stage growth. When the soil moisture content exceeded 25%, reducing the soil firmness to 300 kPa was beneficial for rapeseed growth, but excessively high soil firmness and moisture contents may lead to soil compaction, affecting rapeseed seedling development.
- In general, the soil moisture content in rice stubble fields was typically greater than 25%. Therefore, the objective should be to reduce soil firmness by improving and optimising the design of soil working components. This approach aims to create favourable soil conditions for the growth of rapeseed plants after transplanting using the rapeseed blanket seedling transplanter.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Yin, Y.; Wang, H. Achievement, Problem and Scientific Policy of Rapeseed Industry Development in China. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2012, 14, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Leng, S.; Ni, J.; Zuo, Q.; Yang, G.; Fang, Y. Suitable sowing date of rapeseed blanket seedlings. Chin. J. Oil Crop Sci. 2020, 42, 210–215. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Y.; Gu, J.; Guo, J. Factors Influencing Mechanized Production and Harvesting Methods for Rapeseed. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 2020, 42, 179–182. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, Q.; Wei, H.; Yan, Y.; Zhang, X.; Liu, L.; Shi, J.; Zhao, Y.; Qin, L.; Chen, C.; Wang, H. Rapeseed Research and Production in China. Crop J. 2017, 5, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zuo, Q.; Liu, J.; Shan, J.; Zhou, J.; Wang, L.; Yang, G.; Leng, S.; Liu, H. Carbon and Nitrogen Assimilation and Partitioning in Canola (Brassica napus L.) in Saline Environment. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 1700–1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.; Yi, Z. Selection of the Full Mechanization Technology Route for Rapeseed in China. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2009, 02, 3–6. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.; Lu, J.; Li, X.; Li, J.; Liu, P.; Xu, W.; Yang, Y. Study on Nitrogen Fertilizer Effects and Optimum Fertilizer Rates for Transplanting and Direct-Seeding Rapeseed. Sci. Agric. Sin. 2011, 44, 4406–4414. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, C.; Zhu, C.; Zhang, M.; Zhang, C. Key Points of Rapeseed Mechanized Production Technology. Agric. Equip. Technol. 2012, 38, 20–21. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, W.; Wu, C. Analysis of the Current Situation and Development Trend of Rapeseed Transplanting Machinery in China. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2007, 06, 61–63. [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, Q.; Wang, L.; Zheng, J.; You, J.; Yang, G.; Leng, S.; Liu, J. Effects of Uniconazole Rate on Agronomic Traits and Physiological Indexes of Rapeseed Blanket Seedling. Oil Crop Sci. 2020, 5, 198–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, N.; Li, Y.; Hu, Q.; Li, J.; Li, G.M.; Zhang, C.L. Research of Agronomic Techniques for Mechanical Production of Winter Rape (Brassica napus L.) in South China. Chin. J. Oil Crop Sci. 2010, 32, 451–456. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, L. Study on the Mechanism and Optimization of Mechanical Transplanting of Rapeseed Blanket Seedlings. Master’s Thesis, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Zuo, Q.; You, J.; Wang, L.; Zheng, J.; Li, J.; Qian, C.; Lin, G.; Yang, G.; Leng, S. A Balanced Sowing Density Improves Quality of Rapeseed Blanket Seedling. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Labra, M.-H.; Struik, P.-C.; Calderini, D.-F.; Evers, J.B. Leaf Nitrogen Traits in Response to Plant Density and Nitrogen Supply in Oilseed Rape. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.; Tang, Q.; Yuan, W.; Wang, S.; Wu, C. Design and Parameter Optimization of Ditching and Compacting Parts of Rapeseed Carpet Seedling Transplanter. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2016, 32, 46–53. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, L.; Tang, Q.; Wu, J.; Yu, W.; Zhang, M.; Jiang, D.; Wei, D. Design and Test of Seedbed Preparation Machine before Transplanting of Rapeseed Combined Transplanter. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.; Feng, J.; Wu, J.; Li, D.; Li, X.; Shu, J.; Wang, K. Comprehensive Testing and Analysis on Working Effects of the Rape Transplanters. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2023, 44, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Ungureanu, N.; Croitoru, Ş.; Biriş, S.; Voicu, G.; Vlăduţ, V.; Selvi, K.Ç.; Boruz, S.; Marin, E.; Matache, M.; Manea, D.; et al. Agricultural soil compaction under the action of agricultural machinery. Simp. Aktual. Zadaci Meh. Poljopr. 2015, 1, 31–42. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, P. Influence of Deep Tillage on Soil Structure and Water Utilization in Wheat-Corn Double Cropping Fields. Master’s Thesis, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian, China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Jia, M.; Huang, L.; Li, Q.; Zhao, J.N.; Zhang, Y.J.; Yang, D.L.; Wang, H. Effects of tillage methods on physico-chemical and microbial characteristics of farmland soil and nutritional quality of wheat. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2022, 28, 1964–1976. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.; Lu, B. Effects of Agricultural Machinery Compaction on Soil Physical Properties. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2018, 39, 66–70. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, A.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Huang, X.; Han, Z. Experimental Study on the Influence of Mechanical Compaction on Soil Structure in Different Types of Alfalfa Fields. For. Mach. Woodwork. Equip. 2019, 47, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
- Keller, T.; Maria, S.; Tino, C.; Horn, R.; Or, D. Historical Increase in Agricultural Machinery Weights Enhanced Soil Stress Levels and Adversely Affected Soil Functioning. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 194, 104293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Liu, N.; Yu, L.; Lu, B.; Zhang, W.; Liu, X. Soil Mechanical Compaction and Its Effect on Crop Growth. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull. 2022, 38, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
- Ren, L.; Wang, L.; Lin, L.; Zhang, B. The Progress and Prospect of Soil Compaction by Agricultural Machinery in Arable Land: A Review. Acta Pedol. Sin. 2023, 60, 610–626. [Google Scholar]
- GB/T 5262-2008; General Provisions for the Determination of Test Conditions for Agricultural Machinery. China Standards Press: Beijing, China, 2009.
- Wang, Z.; Leng, S.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, L.; Shi, J.; Zhao, Y.; Qin, L.; Chen, C.; Wang, H. Research Progress on Seedling Transplanting Technology of Rapeseed Blanket-like Seedlings. Jiangsu J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 39, 1247–1255. [Google Scholar]
- Li, L.; Guo, Y.; Yi, P. Analyzing the Principles for Choosing Dimensionless Methods. J. Syst. Manag. 2016, 25, 1040–1045. [Google Scholar]
- Mada, D.; Ibrahim, S.; Hussaini, I. The effect of soil compaction on soil physical properties southern adamawa state agricultural soils. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2013, 2, 70–74. [Google Scholar]
- Tu, Z.; Feng, W.; Xu, T. Analysis of Soil Compaction Causes and Its Effect on Crop Water Absorption. Shaanxi J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 66, 71–73. [Google Scholar]
- Augustin, K.; Kuhwald, M.; Brunotte, J.; Duttmann, R. Wheel Load and Wheel Pass Frequency as Indicators for Soil Compaction Risk: A Four-Year Analysis of Traffic Intensity at Field Scale. Geosciences 2020, 10, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colombi, T.; Keller, T. Developing Strategies to Recover Crop Productivity after Soil Compaction—A Plant Eco-physiological Perspective. Soil Tillage Res. 2019, 191, 156–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pressure | Soil Moisture Content | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
11.09% | 16.07% | 21.30% | 24.58% | 31.25% | ||||||
Soil Firmness | Soil Bulk Density | Soil Firmness | Soil Bulk Density | Soil Firmness | Soil Bulk Density | Soil Firmness | Soil Bulk Density | Soil Firmness | Soil Bulk Density | |
(N) | (kpa) | (g/cm3) | (kpa) | (g/cm3) | (kpa) | (g/cm3) | (kpa) | (g/cm3) | (kpa) | (g/cm3) |
0 | 103.5 | 1.03 | 181 | 0.99 | 124.5 | 1.025 | 163 | 1.32 | 49 | 1.185 |
40 | 60.5 | 1.185 | ||||||||
80 | 60 | 1.127 | ||||||||
100 | 191 | 1.045 | 174 | 1.02 | 212 | 1.135 | 219.5 | 1.31 | ||
120 | 45 | 1.2 | ||||||||
160 | 45 | 2.23 | ||||||||
200 | 196.25 | 1.08 | 212 | 1.07 | 223 | 1.155 | 215.5 | 1.305 | ||
300 | 257 | 1.125 | 257 | 1.03 | 386 | 1.15 | 250 | 1.39 | ||
400 | 281.75 | 1.11 | 303 | 1.06 | 302.5 | 1.2 | 223 | 1.365 | ||
500 | 365 | 1.105 | 386 | 1.12 | 420 | 1.23 | 253.5 | 1.37 | ||
600 | 397.25 | 1.115 | 416 | 1.08 | 461.5 | 1.285 | 280 | 1.345 | ||
700 | 399.25 | 1.11 | 507 | 1.12 | 397.5 | 1.275 | 250 | 1.405 | ||
800 | 456 | 1.16 | 553 | 1.13 | 492 | 1.355 | 291 | 1.375 | ||
900 | 452.5 | 1.08 | 591 | 1.15 | 466 | 1.445 | ||||
1000 | 549 | 1.14 | 640 | 1.17 | 587 | 1.415 |
Soil Moisture Content | Soil Firmness | Soil Bulk Density | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
11.09% | Soil firmness | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.751 ** |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.008 | |||
Number of Cases | 11 | 11 | ||
Soil bulk density | Pearson Correlation | 0.751 ** | 1 | |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.008 | |||
Number of Cases | 11 | 11 | ||
16.07% | Soil firmness | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.934 ** |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.000 | |||
Number of Cases | 11 | 11 | ||
Soil bulk density | Pearson Correlation | 0.934 ** | 1 | |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.000 | |||
Number of Cases | 11 | 11 | ||
21.30% | Soil firmness | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.894 ** |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.000 | |||
Number of Cases | 11 | 11 | ||
Soil bulk density | Pearson Correlation | 0.894 ** | 1 | |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.000 | |||
Number of Cases | 11 | 11 | ||
24.58% | Soil firmness | Pearson Correlation | 1 | 0.574 |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.106 | |||
Number of Cases | 9 | 9 | ||
Soil bulk density | Pearson Correlation | 0.574 | 1 | |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.106 | |||
Number of Cases | 9 | 9 | ||
31.25% | Soil firmness | Pearson Correlation | 1 | −0.528 |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.361 | |||
Number of Cases | 5 | 5 | ||
Soil bulk density | Pearson Correlation | −0.528 | 1 | |
Significance (Two-Tailed) | 0.361 | |||
Number of Cases | 5 | 5 |
Measurement Depth (mm) | Soil Firmness (kpa) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
PBR | USAR | CSAR | PFCICS | SCAC | |
25 | 480.17 | 26.98 | 332.92 | 344.83 | 284.25 |
50 | 555.92 | 33.69 | 408.08 | 393.00 | 312.08 |
75 | 609.50 | 68.54 | 437.17 | 428.92 | 317.08 |
100 | 701.83 | 82.54 | 444.83 | 486.50 | 326.0 |
Soil Physical Parameters | PBR | CSAR | PFCICS | SCAC |
---|---|---|---|---|
Soil bulk density/kpa | 1.34 | 1.19 | 1.35 | 1.28 |
Soil moisture content | 22.73% | 24.73% | 24.80% | 25.35% |
Experiment | Parameter | Maximum Value | Minimum Value | Average Value | Standard Deviation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Experiment 1 (Nanjing) | Seedling Height/mm | 100 | 80 | 86.9 | 6.62 |
Stem Diameter/mm | 2.62 | 1.66 | 2.23 | 0.26 | |
Dry Weight/g | 0.111 | 0.059 | 0.088 | 0.018 | |
Experiment 2 (Liyang) | Seedling Height/mm | 113 | 85 | 99.1 | 8.28 |
Stem Diameter/mm | 2.5 | 1.7 | 2.03 | 0.23 | |
Dry Weight/g | 0.142 | 0.067 | 0.097 | 0.022 |
Experiment | Soil Moisture Content | Soil Firmness/kpa | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
300 | 400 | 500 | ||
15% | 311.25 | 350.25 | 534 | |
Experiment 1 | 20% | 508.5 | 717.5 | 810.5 |
(Nanjing) | 25% | 1323.25 | 1339 | 2015.75 |
30% | 2242.25 | 2451 | 2620.25 | |
15% | 353.33 | 456.67 | 562.67 | |
Experiment 2 | 20% | 381.00 | 519.67 | 633.33 |
(Liyang) | 25% | 454.00 | 535.00 | 648.67 |
30% | 649.67 | 727.00 | 888.67 |
Experiment | Soil Moisture Content | Soil Firmness (kpa) | Survival Rate | Stem Diameter (mm) | Seedling Height (mm) | Dry Weight (g) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
300 | 53.3% | 2.29 | 102.5 | 0.105 | ||
15% | 400 | 60% | 2.06 | 108.33 | 0.162 | |
500 | 60% | 2.59 | 146.11 | 0.310 | ||
300 | 100% | 2.19 | 139.67 | 0.260 | ||
20% | 400 | 100% | 2.64 | 168.07 | 0.450 | |
Experiment 1 | 500 | 100% | 2.64 | 192 | 0.453 | |
(Nanjing) | 300 | 100% | 2.35 | 158 | 0.341 | |
25% | 400 | 100% | 2.08 | 137.2 | 0.232 | |
500 | 100% | 2.07 | 101.67 | 0.183 | ||
300 | 100% | 1.90 | 94.8 | 0.149 | ||
30% | 400 | 100% | 1.92 | 95.93 | 0.141 | |
500 | 100% | 1.85 | 83.87 | 0.137 | ||
300 | 13.3% | 1.70 | 81 | 0.079 | ||
15% | 400 | 20% | 2.05 | 115 | 0.125 | |
500 | 6.7% | 1.95 | 117.5 | 0.1715 | ||
300 | 13.3% | 2.15 | 105.5 | 0.132 | ||
20% | 400 | 60% | 2.22 | 130.5 | 0.35 | |
Experiment 2 | 500 | 66.7% | 2.11 | 149.3 | 0.363 | |
(Liyang) | 300 | 86.7% | 1.77 | 137.5 | 0.2123 | |
25% | 400 | 86.7% | 1.72 | 109.5 | 0.1633 | |
500 | 73.3% | 1.71 | 99.3 | 0.139 | ||
300 | 100% | 1.75 | 114.8 | 0.2113 | ||
30% | 400 | 80% | 1.84 | 114.7 | 0.189 | |
500 | 80% | 1.73 | 122.1 | 0.1737 |
Soil Moisture Content | Soil Firmness (kpa) | Experiment 1 (Nanjing) Growth Values | Experiment 2 (Liyang) Growth Values |
---|---|---|---|
15% | 300 | 0.76 | 0.49 |
400 | 0.90 | 0.71 | |
500 | 1.32 | 0.76 | |
20% | 300 | 1.32 | 0.68 |
400 | 1.78 | 1.34 | |
500 | 1.85 | 1.43 | |
25% | 300 | 1.53 | 1.15 |
400 | 1.25 | 0.97 | |
500 | 1.06 | 0.86 | |
30% | 300 | 0.97 | 1.13 |
400 | 0.96 | 1.03 | |
500 | 0.92 | 0.99 |
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. |
© 2024 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
Jiang, D.; Guan, Z.; Jiang, L.; Wu, J.; Tang, Q.; Wu, C.; Cai, Y. Experimental Study on the Soil Conditions for Rapeseed Transplanting for Blanket Seedling Combined Transplanter. Agriculture 2024, 14, 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020310
Jiang D, Guan Z, Jiang L, Wu J, Tang Q, Wu C, Cai Y. Experimental Study on the Soil Conditions for Rapeseed Transplanting for Blanket Seedling Combined Transplanter. Agriculture. 2024; 14(2):310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020310
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Dong, Zhuohuai Guan, Lan Jiang, Jun Wu, Qing Tang, Chongyou Wu, and Yajun Cai. 2024. "Experimental Study on the Soil Conditions for Rapeseed Transplanting for Blanket Seedling Combined Transplanter" Agriculture 14, no. 2: 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020310
APA StyleJiang, D., Guan, Z., Jiang, L., Wu, J., Tang, Q., Wu, C., & Cai, Y. (2024). Experimental Study on the Soil Conditions for Rapeseed Transplanting for Blanket Seedling Combined Transplanter. Agriculture, 14(2), 310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020310