Submitted:
31 July 2023
Posted:
02 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Material
2.2. Test equipment and methods
2.2.1. Swing impact test
2.2.2. Impending fracturing test
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Swing impact test results and analysis
3.1.1. Influence of material type on silique shattering
3.1.2. Impact Velocity and Stress Surface Effects on Silique Shattering
3.1.3. Effect of moisture content on shattering in siliques
3.1.4. Influence of silique growth position on silique shattering
3.1.5. The effect of supporting role on silique shattering
3.2. Impending fracturing test results and analyses
3.2.1. Effect of support position on mechanical properties of silique
3.2.2. Effect of stress on the mechanical properties of siliques
3.2.3. Effect of loading speed and silique growth position on mechanical properties of siliques
3.3. Influence of morphological characteristics of rapeseed silique on silique shattering
3.3.1. Correlation analysis between silique morphological characters with silique shattering
3.3.2. Grey correlation analysis between silique shattering with siliques morphological characters
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wang, L.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Z. Picuture of rape; Jiangsu Phoenix Science and Technology Press: China, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, H. New-demand oriented oilseed rape industry developing strategy. Chin. J. Oil Crop Sci. 2018, 40, 613–617. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, C.; Wang, J.; Liao, Q.; Wang, Z.; Wu, W. Current status and problems of rapeseed production. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2017, 38, 124–131. [Google Scholar]
- Ma, N.; Zhang, C.; Li, J. , Zhang, M.; Cheng, Y.; Li, G.; Zhang, S. Mechanical harvesting effects on seed yield loss, quality traits and profitability of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus, L.). J. Integr. Agric. 2012, 11, 1297–1304. [Google Scholar]
- Ostergaard, L.; Kempin, S.; Bies, D.; Klee, H.; Yanofsky, M. Pod shatter-resistant Brassica fruit produced by ectopic expression of the fruitfull gene. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2006, 4, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Zhu, J.; Xu, L.; Zhao, Z. Experiment on strength of rapeseed pod dehiscence based on impending fracturing method. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2012, 28, 111–115. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, M.; Wu, C.; Jin, M.; Mu, S.; Liang, S.; Tang, Q. Effects of harvesting method and date on yield loss and seed quality of rapeseed. Oil Crop Sci. 2019, 4, 166–174. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, C.; Qi, Y.; Liu, G.; Yang, T.; Ni, Y. Mechanism analysis and parameter optimization of soybean combine harvester reel. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2023, 54, 104–113. [Google Scholar]
- Price, J.; Hobson, R.; Neals, M.; Bruce, D. Seed losses in commercial harvesting of oilseed rape. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1996, 65, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pari, L.; Assirelli, A.; Suardi, A.; Civitarese, V.; Del, A.; Santangelo, E. Seed losses during the harvesting of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) at on-farm scale. J. Agric. Eng. 2013, XLIV, e126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruce,D. ; Farrent, J.; Morgan, C.; Child, R. Determining the oilseed rape pod strength needed to reduce seed loss due to pod shatter. Biosyst. Eng. 2002, 81, 179–184. [Google Scholar]
- Stephenson, P.; Stacey, N.; Brueser, M.; Pullen, N.; Ostergaard, L. The power of model-to-crop translation illustrated by reducing seed loss from pod shatter in oilseed rape. Plant Reprod. 2019, 32, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, M.; Li, G.; Yang, Y.; Jin, M.; Jiang, T. Design and Parameter Optimization of Variable Speed Reel for Oilseed Rape Combine Harvester. Preprints 2023, 2023061850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, Y.; Li, Y.; Qing, Y. Insertion trajectory analysis and experiment of rape combine harvester reel. J. Agric. Mech. Res. 2020, 10, 189–194. [Google Scholar]
- Kadkol, G.; Macmillan, R.; Burrow, R.; Halloran, G. Evaluation of Brassica genotypes for resistance to shatter. I: Development of a laboratory test. Euphytica, 1984, 33, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pu, H.; Long, W.; Gao, J.; Hu, M. Silique shatter resistance and correlation analysis in brassica napus. Chinese Journal of Oil Crop Sciences 2013, 35, 469–475. [Google Scholar]
- Qiao, J.; Li, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Xu, L. Test and analysis on the silique shatter resistance of mature oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Journal of Agricultural Mechanization Research 2015, 37, 204–207. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y. Design and Analysis of Grain Combine Harvester; China Machine Press: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Qing, Y.; Li, Y.; Ma, Z.; Xu, L.; Yang, Y. Technology of 2-DOF collision testing for rape pod shatter resistance. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2019, 35, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, M.; Jin, M.; Wang, G.; Liang, S.; Wu, C. Design and test of double crank planar five-bar reel in rape windrower. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2022, 53, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
- Guan, Z.; Wu, C.; Wang, G.; Li, H.; Mu, S. Design of bidirectional electric driven side vertical cutter for rape combine harvester. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2019, 35, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, L.; Li, Y. Modeling and experiment to threshing unit of stripper combine. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 4106–4113. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Wu, C.; Mu, S.; Guan, Z.; Jiang, T. Formation mechanism of laying angle of vertical rape windrower based on ANSYS-ADAMS. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2020, 36, 96–105. [Google Scholar]
- Li, P.; Liao, Q.; Li, L.; Han, C.; Huang, P.; Li, H. Design and experiment of the main device of 4SY-1.8 modified rape windrower. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2014, 45, 53–58. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, C.; Wu, C.; Jin, M.; Lu, Y.; Yuan, W.; Tang, Z. Design and experiment of 4SY-2 rape windrower. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 2010, 41, 76–79. [Google Scholar]
- Liao, Q. Mechanization Technology of Rape Production; Science Press: Beijin, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, T.; Li, B.; Zhou, C.; Chen, D. New type of gear-cam modular reel. J. Mech. Transm. 2015, 39, 133–137. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, X.; He, M. Experiment Design and Application of Design-Expert and SPSS; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Wen, Y.; Fu, Y.; Tu, J.; Ma, C.; Shen, J.; Zhang, S. Research progress of rapeseed resistance angle. Journal of Plant Genetic Resources. 2009, 10, 140–145. [Google Scholar]







| Morphological Characteristics of Oilseed rape silique | Zhenyou 8 | Ningza 1818 | Fengyou 306 | ||||||
| Maximum value | Minimum value | Average value | Maximum value | Minimum value | Average value | Maximum value | Minimum value | average value | |
| Silique length (mm) | 65.0 | 42.5 | 55.2 | 75.0 | 58.0 | 68.6 | 75.0 | 60.5 | 66.6 |
| Silique width (mm) | 5.76 | 4.60 | 5.23 | 5.86 | 4.14 | 4.83 | 5.52 | 4.48 | 5.01 |
| Silique thickness (mm) | 3.62 | 2.92 | 3.27 | 3.90 | 3.04 | 3.37 | 3.84 | 2.48 | 3.24 |
| Beak length (mm) | 13.0 | 9.0 | 10.9 | 20.0 | 14.0 | 15.9 | 18.0 | 13.0 | 15.9 |
| Pericarp thickness (mm) | 0.34 | 0.16 | 0.28 | 0.36 | 0.24 | 0.30 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 0.28 |
| Impact velocity/m·s-1 | Ningza1818 | Zhenyou 8 | ||
| Right ahead | Bonding surface | Right ahead | Bonding surface | |
| 1.5 | 0% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
| 2.5 | 10% | 30% | 5% | 15% |
| 3.5 | 15% | 50% | 5% | 40% |
| 4.5 | 30% | 65% | 15% | 60% |
| Moisture content of silique/% | Moisture content of rapeseed/% | Silique shattering rate/% |
| 20.61 | 23.85 | 25 |
| 15.83 | 17.29 | 45 |
| 9.24 | 8.06 | 75 |
| Different distribution locations of silique | |||
| Top of main branch | Middle of main branch | Bottom of main branch | |
| Shattering rate/% | 50 | 40 | 25 |
| Unsupported | Support position | ||
| Horizon 0mm | Horizon 5mm | Horizon 10mm | |
| 40% | 100% | 90% | 75% |
| Serial number | Carpopodium and beak | Carpopodiums and petals | Siliques body support | |||
| Maximum cracking force/N | Flexural strength/MPa | Maximum cracking force/N | Flexural strength/MPa | Maximum cracking force/N | Flexural strength/MPa | |
| 1 | 1.45 | 6.05 | 2.14 | 8.19 | 3.12 | 8.61 |
| 2 | 1.11 | 4.62 | 2.18 | 8.33 | 3.41 | 9.45 |
| 3 | 1.44 | 6.02 | 1.90 | 7.24 | 3.48 | 9.45 |
| 4 | 1.57 | 6.54 | 2.4 | 9.16 | 3.05 | 8.48 |
| 5 | 1.73 | 7.21 | 2.05 | 7.83 | 4.16 | 11.57 |
| Average value | 1.46 | 6.09 | 2.13 | 8.15 | 3.44 | 9.51 |
| Zhenyou8 | Ningza1818 | Fengyou306 | ||||
| Average value of maximum cracking force /N | Average value of flexural strength/MPa | Average value of maximum cracking force/N | Average value of flexural strength/MPa | Average value of maximum cracking force/N | Average value of flexural strength/MPa | |
| Petal front | 1.68 | 4.66 | 1.51 | 5.81 | 1.33 | 4.63 |
| Petal bonding surface | 1.03 | 3.82 | 0.72 | 3.44 | 0.76 | 3.54 |
| Average value | 1.35 | 4.24 | 1.12 | 4.62 | 1.04 | 4.09 |
| Source of variation | SS | f | MS | F value | P value |
| Rapeseed varieties | 1.055 | 2 | 0.528 | 21.668 | <0.001*** |
| Silique different stress surfaces | 6.687 | 1 | 6.687 | 274.563 | <0.001*** |
| Rapeseed varieties×different stress surfaces | 0.145 | 2 | 0.072 | 2.969 | 0.06 |
| Error | 1.315 | 4 | 0.024 | ||
| Total variation | 9.202 | 9 |
| Source of variation | SS | df | MS | F value | P value |
| Rapeseed varieties | 3.110 | 2 | 1.555 | 4.798 | 0.012 |
| Silique different stress surfaces | 30.774 | 1 | 30.774 | 94.976 | <0.001 |
| Rapeseed varieties×Different stress surfaces | 6.731 | 2 | 3.366 | 10.387 | <0.001 |
| Error | 17.497 | 54 | 0.324 | ||
| Total variation | 58.111 | 59 |
| Silique at the top of plant | Silique at the middle of plant | Silique at the bottom of plant | ||||
| Average value of the maximum cracking force /N | Average value of flexural strength/MPa | Average value of maximum cracking force /N | Average value of flexural strength/MPa | Average value of maximum cracking force /N | Average value of flexural strength/MPa | |
| Loading speed 5mm·min-1 | 1.85 | 5.15 | 1.91 | 5.32 | 1.86 | 5.16 |
| Loading speed 15 mm·min-1 | 2.21 | 6.14 | 2.32 | 6.45 | 2.18 | 6.06 |
| Loading speed 25 mm·min-1 | 2.07 | 5.75 | 2.15 | 5.98 | 1.96 | 5.46 |
| Average value | 2.02 | 5.63 | 2.11 | 5.86 | 2.00 | 5.57 |
| Source of variation | Type III sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square | F | Significance |
| Correction model | 0.891 | 8 | 0.111 | 14.001 | <0.001 |
| Intercept | 135.296 | 1 | 135.296 | 17007.528 | <0.001 |
| Silique distribution location | 0.095 | 2 | 0.047 | 5.951 | 0.008 |
| Loading speed | 0.776 | 2 | 0.388 | 48.785 | <0.001 |
| Silique distribution location×Loading speed | 0.019 | 4 | 0.005 | 0.610 | 0.625 |
| Error | 0.191 | 24 | 0.008 | ||
| Total | 139.453 | 33 | |||
| Correction total | 1.082 | 32 |
| Source of variation | Type III sum of squares | Degree of freedom | Mean square | F | Significance |
| Correction model | 6.907 | 8 | 0.863 | 14.050 | <0.001 |
| Intercept | 1045.86 | 1 | 1045.857 | 17020.024 | <0.001 |
| Silique distribution location | 0.739 | 2 | 0.370 | 6.017 | 0.008 |
| Loading speed | 6.012 | 2 | 3.006 | 48.922 | <0.001 |
| Silique distribution location×Loading speed | 0.149 | 4 | 0.037 | 0.608 | 0.661 |
| Error | 1.475 | 24 | 0.061 | ||
| Total | 1078.045 | 33 | |||
| Correction total | 8.382 | 32 |
| Silique characters | Range of variability | Average value | Standard deviation | Coefficient of variation/% | Skewness coefficient | Kurtosis coefficient |
| Silique length/mm | 45~76 | 66.122 | 6.3491 | 9.60 | -0.994 | 1.184 |
| Beak length/mm | 13~20 | 15.522 | 1.4318 | 9.22 | 0.659 | 1.169 |
| Width/mm | 3.94~5.96 | 4.8471 | 0.42494 | 8.77 | 0.333 | 0.657 |
| Thickness/mm | 2.96~4.26 | 3.3467 | 0.29354 | 8.77 | 1.091 | 0.718 |
| Pericarp thickness/mm | 0.22~0.36 | 0.2947 | 0.03507 | 11.90 | 0.048 | -0.836 |
| Diameter of carpopodium/mm | 0.56~0.88 | 0.6998 | 0.06469 | 9.24 | 0.393 | 0.558 |
| Angle/° | 0~29 | 10.489 | 8.2697 | 78.84 | 0.41 | -0.833 |
| Characteristic | Length /mm |
Beak length /mm |
Width /mm |
Thickness /mm |
Pericarp Thickness/mm | diameter of carpopodium/mm | Angle | Shattering |
| Silique length (mm) | 1 | |||||||
| Beak length (mm) | 0.296** | 1 | ||||||
| Silique width (mm) | 0.346** | -0.135 | 1 | |||||
| Silique thickness (mm) | -0.024 | 0.220* | 0.377** | 1 | ||||
| Petal thickness (mm) | -0.071 | 0.186 | 0.244* | 0.784** | 1 | |||
| Diameter of carpopodium (mm) | 0.232* | 0.135 | 0.576** | 0.587** | 0.456** | 1 | ||
| Angle between carpopodium and silique | 0.139 | 0.1 | 0.092 | -0.038 | -0.013 | 0.168 | 1 | |
| Shattering | 0.07 | 0.226* | 0.15 | 0.197 | 0.19 | 0.594** | -0.068 | 1 |
| Silique morphological characteristics | Correlation | Rank |
| The angle of the silique stalk to the silique (°) | 0.586 | 1 |
| Diameter of the silique stalk (mm) | 0.552 | 2 |
| Thickness of the pericarp (mm) | 0.546 | 3 |
| Length of the beak (mm) | 0.545 | 4 |
| Thickness of the silique (mm) | 0.544 | 5 |
| Width of the silique (mm) | 0.543 | 6 |
| Length of the silique (mm) | 0.542 | 7 |
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. |
© 2023 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).