ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Design and experimental evaluation of an orderly harvesting device for hydroponic leafy vegetables.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hydroponic leafy vegetables are well suited to standardized cultivation, but mechanical harvesting remains constrained by root entanglement, unstable clamping and disordered plant posture. To address these problems, an orderly harvesting device integrating rotating root flicking, clamping conveying and differential steering was designed and evaluated using hydroponic spinach and Shanghai bok choy. The device used counter-rotating nylon brushes for non-cutting root treatment, a twisted double-belt clamping conveyor for low-damage conveying and a differential belt steering unit for posture adjustment. Multi-level single-factor tests were conducted for brush speed, clamping-conveying twist angle and upper steering-belt speed. The root removal rate increased from 65.7% to 79.2% as brush speed increased from 600 to 1000 r/min, while the damage rate increased from 1.5% to 4.1%; 800 r/min was selected as a balanced condition, giving a root removal rate of 77.4% and a damage rate of 2.5%. Under a twist angle of 60
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.