ArticleScientific reports2025
Influence of tillage methods on transplanter performance with different transplanting mechanisms.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Detection of tobacco seedlings in plastic-mulched fields using vegetation indices and YOLOv11.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sustainable vegetable production depends on the effective integration of conservation tillage practices with suitable transplanting technologies. This study analyzes the interaction between conservation and conventional tillage practices and the performance of three transplanter types: disc-type, carousel-type, and dibble-type. A split-plot experimental design was employed, where tillage methods (Conventional 1, Conservation 1, Conventional 2, and Conservation 2) were assigned to main plots, and transplanter types (disc-type, carousel-type, and dibble-type) were assigned to subplots. Key performance metrics, including seedling spacing, planting depth, gripping force, vertical positioning, damage rate, and survival rate, were evaluated for tomato and watermelon seedlings. The findings revealed consistent seedling spacing across transplanter types and tillage methods, while other performance indicators varied significantly. Under conservation tillage conditions, the dibble-type transplanter yielded suboptimal survival rates, with tomato seedling survival dropping to 75%, below the acceptable 90% threshold. In contrast, disc and carousel transplanters achieved higher survival rates under similar conditions, albeit with slightly increased damage rates, up to 8.1% for watermelon seedlings. This study highlights the necessity of selecting compatible transplanting equipment for the successful implementation of conservation tillage systems. By identifying optimal transplanter-tillage combinations, the research contributes to the advancement of sustainable vegetable production practices. Future studies should address crop-specific requirements and their interactions with conservation tillage and transplanting equipment to refine these recommendations further.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.