Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Clamping and Conveying Parameters for Spinach Orderly Harvesting with Low Damage by Simulation and Experiment
Previous Article in Journal
Medium-Term Monitoring of Greenhouse Gases above Rice-Wheat Rotation System Based on Mid-Infrared Laser Heterodyne Radiometer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy14092163
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Recent Advances in Biomimetic Methods for Tillage Resistance Reduction in Agricultural Soil-Engaging Tools

by
Xuezhen Wang
*,
Shihao Zhang
,
Ruizhi Du
,
Hanmi Zhou
and
Jiangtao Ji
College of Agricultural Equipment Engineering, Henan University of Science and Technology, Luoyang 471000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2024, 14(9), 2163; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092163
Submission received: 9 August 2024 / Revised: 17 September 2024 / Accepted: 20 September 2024 / Published: 22 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Topic Intelligent Agriculture: Perception Technologies and Agricultural Equipment for Crop Production Processes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The high tillage resistance of agricultural soil-engaging tools (TASTs) in farmland operations (e.g., tillage, sowing, crop management, and harvesting) increases fuel consumption and harmful gas emissions, which negatively affect the development of sustainable agriculture. Biomimetic methods are promising and effective technologies for reducing the TASTs and have been developed in the past few years. This review comprehensively summarizes the typical agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs) and their characteristics and presents existing biomimetic methods for decreasing TASTs. The introduction of TAST reduction was performed on aspects of tillage, sowing, crop management, and harvesting. The internal mechanisms and possible limitations of current biomimetic methods for various ASETs were investigated. The tillage resistance reduction rates of ASETs, as affected by various biomimetic methods, were quantitatively compared under different soil conditions with statistical analyses. Additionally, three future research directions were recommended in the review to further reduce TASTs and encourage the development of sustainable agriculture.

1. Introduction

The agriculture sector plays a pivotal role in the global economy, significantly contributing to food security, employment, and socioeconomic development. However, conventional agricultural practices have also been associated with substantial environmental impacts, including fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, soil degradation, water pollution, and deforestation. As the world’s population continues to grow, the demand for food and agricultural products is expected to increase, further exacerbating these environmental challenges [1].
In agriculture, soil–tool interactions generally occur at various crop-growing stages, including tillage [2,3,4], sowing [5], crop managing [6], and harvesting periods [7]. The interactions between soil and agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs) are performed using a mechanical force, commonly with a tractor, to achieve the shearing, upheaval, failure, movement, loosening, overturning, and fracturing of the soil [8,9,10,11,12]. The energy used in the soil operating processes accounts for a significant portion of the total energy consumed for the entire cropping system [13,14]. With the increase in oil prices and pressure on emissions, it is essential to reduce the energy used in field soil operations. Additionally, the tillage resistance of ASETs greatly affects tractor power requirements and tillage operation efficiency, especially in heavy clay soils, which limits the ASET’s working width [15,16,17]. Decreasing the tillage resistance (e.g., draught force and torque) during soil–ASET interactions is, therefore, desired to reduce energy consumption and tractor power requirements.
The tillage resistance reduction methods of ASETs include biomimetic, experimental, oscillation, high-pressure-gas splitting (HGS), line element design (LED) methods, and others [18,19,20]. The oscillation method can be grouped into the self-oscillation type and forced type in terms of the source of power [10,21]. This method can reduce the horizontal resultant draught force by adding a vertical movement to the ASET, in accordance with soil mechanical properties. For the HGS method, a pipe with high-pressure gas is mounted in front of the ASET, and the outlet of gas is mounted near the soil cutting share [22]. Tillage resistance can be reduced, as the soil was loosened in advance before making contact with the ASET. For the experimental method, tillage resistance can be reduced by finding the best parameter combination of ASETs through various experimental designs (e.g., Box–Behnken test) [23,24,25]. For the LED method, the shank shape of the ASET is generally determined according to the soil particles’ trajectories, as affected by the cutting share [20]; tillage resistance reduction is attributed to increased soil sliding cutting on the shank. Both the oscillation and HGS methods need extra mechanisms and additional energies to achieve the purpose of reducing tillage resistance. The tillage resistance reduction rate can be very limited using only the experimental method, as the main structure and soil cutting characteristics of the ASETs are not changed. The designed ASETs using the LED method are limited to certain soil parameters (bulk density and categories) or working conditions (travel speed and tillage depth), whose variations may result in a much lower tillage resistance reduction rate.
Biomimetics is generally defined as bio-inspired design, adapted or derived from nature [26]. Recently, there has been rapid development in designing and manufacturing various tools by means of mimicking different creatures [27,28,29]. A good application instance of biomimetic methods is the biomimetic ASETs for decreasing tillage resistance, which can be realized through various mechanisms, e.g., reducing adhesion and friction against the soil [30,31]. However, biomimetic methods are generally limited to a certain soil status or tool parameter, so many challenges remain in relation to the selection of effective bionic factors, such as the moving mechanisms of bionic prototypes, the integration of biomimetic design, and the agronomic requirements, as well as other methods. For example, variations in soil type can result in different internal friction angles and friction coefficients between steel and soil, which could affect soil cutting and disturbance behaviors; moreover, the moving mechanisms of some bionic prototypes can improve soil fluidity and the biomimetic design of ASETs, but may not acquire the highest tillage resistance reduction rates. Thus, the objectives of the review were to (1) sum up typical agricultural soil-engaging tools and their working characteristics; (2) reveal and analyze current biomimetic methods for the tillage resistance reduction in ASETs, including both internal mechanisms and their possible limitations; (3) quantitatively study the tillage resistance of various ASETs, as affected by the effects of biomimetic methods; and (4) provide recommendations of three research directions, in accordance with the current challenges and their possible limitations to enhance the development of sustainable agriculture.

2. Overview of Agricultural Soil-Engaging Tools

Agricultural field soil–tool interactions can be defined as physical soil manipulation in order to optimize conditions for seedbed preparation, crop growth, and crop harvest. Agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs) mainly consist of tillage tools (e.g., subsoiler, moldboard plough), sowing tools (e.g., opener, press roller), crop-managing tools (e.g., fertilizer applicator and shovel for mechanical weeding), and crop-harvest tools (e.g., harvester shovel), in accordance with the operation process during the whole crop-growing season, as shown in Table 1. Although the main functions of various ASETs may be different in agriculture (see Table 1), all of them (i.e., ASETs) require tractor power to push them forward and complete certain operations. The larger the draught force of ASETs during operations, the greater the power requirement of the tractor, and the higher the fuel consumption. For tillage tools (e.g., subsoiling tool and moldboard plough), fertilizer deep applicators, and harvesting tools for root crops, larger working depths (>20 cm) or soil disturbance amounts generally give larger draught forces during tillage [28,32,33,34,35]. Currently, sowing operations are moving from slower to faster speeds (14–16 km h−1) [32,36,37]. The increased travel speeds result in larger draught forces and fuel consumption. Therefore, reducing the tillage resistance of agricultural soil-engaging tools (TAST) is always the focus of the research of soil–ASET interactions, especially for ASETs with larger working depths (e.g., subsoiling tools and fertilizer deep applicators) [38,39] or larger speeds (i.e., high-speed sowing tools).

3. Biomimetic Methods for Lower Resistance of ASETs

On our Earth, life emerged after about 3.8 Gyr of evolution in nature [50]. Numerous creatures in nature have evolved their organs with high performance to adapt to their local environmental conditions (e.g., soil and water). For example, psephurus gladius can clearly observe predators in the sludge; cheetahs can run at 120 km h−1 on land and accelerate to 100 km h−1 in 2 s. Importantly, many creatures can travel through various media (e.g., soil or water) with very little resistance [28,45,51,52].
In this study, biomimetic methods are the application of the excellent resistance reduction biomimetic prototypes of some creatures to the design of ASETs for lower tillage resistance [31,53]. The biomimetic parts and corresponding prototypes that were commonly applied in the design of ASETs were summarized in Figure 1, including claw, leg, head, jaw, skin (non-smooth structures), mouthpart, head protrusion, and body outline. Soil properties and geometrical and working parameters are the main influential factors affecting ASET performance and can be considered in the bionic design of any ASET [54,55,56]. A total of three bionic strategies were put forward to remove the limitations of high tillage resistance, as follows: (1) reduction in the soil disturbance area, (2) movement direction optimization of soil particles, and (3) contact conditions improvement between soil particles and the surface of ASETs.

3.1. Reduction in Soil Disturbance Area

The soil cross-sectional disturbance area generally positively affects the draught force of ASETs as per research from Yang et al. [57] and Sun et al. [31]. A smaller disturbance area of soil generally means smaller tillage resistance and fuel consumption [20,45]. When the tool component with a biomimetic cutting-edge curve, bioinspired by a creature organ (e.g., claws from bear, vole, badger, mole cricket; head from sailfish), was used in the design of an ASET, soil disturbance characteristics, such as soil disturbance area, soil disturbance width, and soil rupture distance ratio could be more or less reduced, as compared with common tools (Figure 2) [6,27,45,57]. The subsoiler bioinspired by a creature’s claw required 3.0–98.2% and 24.0–106.3% less draught and vertical forces during subsoiling operations [58,59,60]. Replacing the common tines (e.g., linear tine, circular tine) of openers with biomimetic tines inspired by sailfish head curve gave a 1.1–26.0% decrease in draught forces (Figure 2C), as shown by Cao [61] and Zhao et al. [45]. The draught force of a biomimetic fertilizer deep applicator bioinspired by a sturgeon’s body outline was 7.2–21.3% lower than a conventional fertilizer deep applicator (Figure 2D) [6].

3.2. Movement Direction Optimization of Soil Particles

As shown in Figure 3A, a uniform distribution of soil particles on a chisel cutting share was found in terms of soil particle velocities during subsoiling operations. The phenomenon of soil obstruction could occur as the number of soil particles with similarly small velocities above the cutting share could continue to increase in front of a shank with time [56]. As for the subsoiling tool with a biomimetic cutting share bioinspired by a sandfish head curve, much higher soil particle velocities were found due to the change in the moving direction of particles (Figure 3A); soil particle flowability was, therefore, improved, which gave lower draught and vertical forces [56]. The curvatures of the fitting curve of a sandfish head contour initially decreased and then increased (Figure 3A), and the variation could favor the soil breakage and flowability in the subsoiling process [56]. Zhang et al. [17] found that the structure of pig-head-inspired harvester shovel could guide the flow of soil particles, and particle velocities around the bionic shovel were much higher than those of a common chisel shovel (Figure 3B). This indicated that the soil flowability around the harvester shovel was improved during harvesting operations, which gave lower draught forces.

3.3. Improvement of Contact Status

There are several strategies for improving the contact status between a material (e.g., soil, water) and the creature body surface to reduce the resistance during their movement in the material. For example, the non-smooth structure on the skin of some creatures (e.g., shark, dung beetle) can reduce the contact area between the skin and some materials [31]. A porous structure on the skin of some creatures (e.g., earthworm) can secrete lubricants (e.g., fluid, wax and oil), as shown in Figure 4 [62,63]. A three-layer structure can be created during the earthworm movement. The shear force of the fluid layer secreted from the body surface of earthworm is much smaller than that when soil has direct contact with the body surface [62,63]. A microscopic electroosmosis effect from some creatures’ bodies can be produced between their bodies and surroundings when they touch the soil [64]. The movement of water from neighboring soil to the contacting regions between soil particles and the body surface gives action potential, increasing the thickness of the water film at the contacting locations. The adhesion of soil, therefore, can be lower due to the lubrication effects [30,64]. In brief, to reduce the tillage resistance of ASETs, improvement in the contacting status between the surface of various ASETs and the soil particles can be achieved through the following three approaches: (1) adding some biomimetic structural characteristics (e.g., riblets) to the surface of the ASET, (2) adding lubricant to the surface between the ASET and the soil (Figure 4), and (3) applying a direct current to the soil and the ASET.

3.3.1. Adding Biomimetic Non-Smooth Structures

The soil vortex on ASETs without non-smooth structures fully contacts the flat surface (Figure 5A), and soil elements only move in a single direction (Figure 5D). Then, the soil element areas of the shank surface are raised, resulting in larger friction forces and shear stresses. However, for ASETs with reasonable non-smooth structures, vortices can be significantly lifted away, and just riblets on the tool surface contact them (Figure 5B,C). Moreover, the non-smooth structures allow the soil particles to fluctuate instead of moving in the same direction. As a result, adhesion was reduced between the ASETs touched and the soil, as shown in Figure 5E. Research from Sun et al. [31] showed that the shape and direction of shark-skin-inspired riblets are of great importance for designing a subsoiling tool with lower tillage resistance. Wu et al. [54] found that the travel speed contributed to reducing the draught force of the non-smooth surface of subsoiling tools.

3.3.2. Adding Lubricant

Direct contact between an ASET and soil particles can lead to greater contacting forces (forces of friction and cohesion). The addition of lubricant to the ASET surface can avoid direct contact and reduce these forces. This method mainly consists of the fluid lubrication method and the electroosmosis method. A three-layer interface (similar to Figure 4B) can be created when fluid lubrication is added to the ASET surface during field operations. The forces of both friction and cohesion can be reduced because of the separation of the ASET surface and the soil particles. A study from Kou [62] used pure water as the lubricant and demonstrated that more lubricant outlets or higher lubricant speeds resulted in smaller friction forces. However, lubricants used for this approach should not negatively affect the environment, as they are continuously injected to maintain a steady reduction rate of draught force.
With the electroosmosis method, tillage resistance can be reduced, in accordance with the interface water film theory [66]. The ASET surface can be used as a negative electrode with the addition of direct current to the soil and the ASET [66]. The difference in potential between the ASET surface and the soil can force the water to move in the direction of the ASET surface. The soil viscosity decreases due to the increase in water content between the ASET surface and the soil, which causes lower tillage resistance [66]. A study from Qiao and Jiang [67] showed that the electroosmosis method can reduced tillage resistance in subsoiling tools by about 10%. Larson and Clyma [68] found that the tillage resistance of ASETs was decreased by 11–39% with an increase in voltage values from 40 to 45 v, and soil categories greatly affected the tillage resistance.
Table 2, Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 summarize the typical bionic parts of agricultural soil-engaging tools (e.g., soil tillage tools, sowing tools, crop-managing tools, harvesting tools) and corresponding bionic prototypes in the published literature. Although the tillage resistance of various ASETs was more or less reduced due to the addition of bionic factors, there are some limitations in the biomimetic methods that hinder the further reduction in tillage resistance: (1) only a simple bionic factor (e.g., cutting edge curve of claw or lateral contour curve of head) was used in most studies; the combining effects of various bionic factors (living conditions and geometrical and moving parameters) on reducing tillage resistance were not analyzed; (2) only the biomimetic methods were used in the design of bionic ASETs, and other methods (e.g., oscillatory method) for further reducing tillage resistance were not employed at the same time; (3) the agronomic requirements were rarely considered in the testing of new-designed bionic parts; however, the variation of working conditions (e.g., straw mulching in conservation agriculture) can seriously affect the tool performance.

3.4. Evaluation of Effects of Biomimetic Methods on Tillage Resistance Reduction

To evaluate the effects of biomimetic methods on the tillage resistance of various ASETs, tillage resistance from the appropriate literature was collected. Methods for including appropriate studies are as follows: (1) the basic information of experimental groups was extracted from the original literature with the help of certain software (e.g., GetData Graph Digitizer); (2) at least one group of tillage resistance or torque values (for rotary tillage tools) was included in these works; (3) other basic data or information was clarified, e.g., soil type. In total, 148 paired comparisons from 38 studies basically fulfilled the above inclusion methods. To obtain better strategies for reducing the tillage resistance of ASETs, the tillage resistance reduction rates (TFRRs) of various research were calculated and compared. The TFRR was calculated below:
TFRR = F b − F a F b × 100 %
where Fb = tillage resistance before optimizing ASET; Fa = tillage resistance after optimizing ASET; for rotary tillage tools, Fb and Fa stand for torque values or power consumption before and after optimizing ASETs, respectively.
The TFRRs of various ASETs as affected by biomimetic methods are shown in Table 6. As for the less viscous soil, the TFRRs of fertilizer deep applicators and harvester shovels are larger than those of other ASETs; the smallest TFRRs were associated with sowing tools (i.e., openers). By contrast, the TFRRs of rollers and harvester shovels are relatively larger (>20%), and those of ridgers and subsoiling tools are the smallest under viscous soil conditions (e.g., clay and clay loam soils). The TFRRs of all ASETs were higher under viscous soil conditions than those under less viscous soil conditions except for fertilizer deep applicators. This indicated that the biomimetic methods are more effective under viscous soil conditions for reducing the tillage resistance of most ASETs. On average, the TFRRs of all ASETs are larger than 11%, which implied that the biomimetic methods are an efficient and promising technology for reducing the tillage resistance of any agricultural soil-engaging tools. Moreover, the TFRRs of crop-managing tools, harvesting tools, and rollers are relatively higher (>20%) than other ASETs.

4. Conclusions and Suggestions for Future Research

The recent advance in biomimetic methods for decreasing the tillage resistance of agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs) has been reported in this review, such as subsoiling tools, rotary tillage tools, moldboard ploughs, stubble cultivators, openers, ridgers, rollers, fertilizer deep applicators, and harvester shovels. The internal mechanisms of biomimetic methods for reducing the tillage resistance of various ASETs were revealed, and the performance evaluation of tools in different literature was performed; also, the factors limiting tool improvement in terms of the lower tillage resistance of ASETs were analyzed. Moreover, the effects of biomimetic methods on the tillage resistance of different ASETs under various soil conditions were statistically investigated. Biomimetic methods are proven to be an effective technology for reducing the tillage resistance and power consumption of various ASETs, as implied by all the positive values of the TFRRs. Biomimetic methods are more effective under viscous soil conditions for reducing the tillage resistance of most ASETs. On average, biomimetic methods are more efficient and promising in reducing the tillage resistance of crop-managing tools, harvesting tools, and rollers, as indicated by relatively higher TFRRs of >20%. However, there should also be some trade-offs in durability and the cost of manufacturing these complex biomimetic ASETs. To speed up the development of biomimetic methods in reducing the tillage resistance of various ASETs, a future investigation on the biomimetic method should center on the following aspects.

4.1. Selection of Effective Biomimetic Factors in the Design of ASETs

Finding appropriate biomimetic factors is the first and the most critical step to perform an effective biomimetic design of ASETs. Niu et al. [75] designed two new cutting shares with continuous and discontinuous biomimetic structures based on two microconvex structures of the skin surface from a hammerhead shark obtained using laser scanning confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscope (Figure 6); results showed that the cutting share with a discontinuous biomimetic structure reduced subsoiling resistance by 21.30% in the travel direction compared with that without a biomimetic structure. By contrast, the cutting share with a continuous biomimetic structure had a much higher subsoiling resistance in the travel direction.
Only a simple bionic factor (e.g., cutting edge curve of a claw) was used in most of the literature. The combining effects of various bionic factors (living conditions and geometrical and moving parameters) on reducing tillage resistance were not analyzed. The bionic factors for the biomimetic design of an ASET should be selected from local creatures’ organs, as they may differ considerably among different regions, e.g., the ASETs working in clay soil should be designed using bionic factors from creatures living in viscous soils. Additionally, more parameters (e.g., the lateral curved surface of the claw and head) should also be considered, as they may be better bionic factors for a certain ASET. In nature, living things have evolved over time to optimize their various organs [98], and some of their organs can freely move through living environmental materials (e.g., soil and others). Thus, the moving behaviors of creatures’ organs may also play an important role in disturbing their living environmental materials. For example, by using high-speed x-ray imaging, Maladen et al. [99] found that the lizard generates thrust to overcome drag under the soil surface by propagating an undulatory traveling wave down the body instead of using limbs; and the trajectory of a lizard’s head is a sinusoid (Figure 7). Therefore, the bionic ASETs bioinspired by only the contour of a lizard head without sinusoidal movement may not have the best tool performance in terms of tillage resistance.

4.2. Combination of Biomimetic Methods and Other Methods

A combination of biomimetic methods and others may be a practical strategy to make full use of the characteristics of different methods in terms of lower tillage resistance. Biomimetic methods are relatively much more efficient and advantageous under viscous soil conditions, as indicated by higher TFRRs for most ASETs (Table 6). Other methods, e.g., the oscillatory method, may outperform biomimetic methods under less viscous soil conditions. Moreover, tillage resistance can be significantly affected by some of the structural and travel parameters of ASETs [2,12,25,49,99,100,101]. Thus, the optimization of tool parameters (including biomimetic factorial parameters) through the experimental method is an essential and practical way to further decrease the tillage resistance of ASETs. For example, draught forces were 13.1–18.9% higher for subsoiling tools bioinspired by a badger claw than those biomimetic subsoiling tools with oscillation, as per Bai et al. [102]. Another study showed that tillage resistance reduction rates were greatly affected by the direction of triangular prisms (BTPs) on the subsoiling tool (Figs. 8A and 8B), which changed soil disturbance areas (Figure 8C) [31].

4.3. Considering the Agronomic Requirements in the Biomimetic Design

The variation of working conditions can seriously affect tool performance. However, the agronomic requirements (e.g., straw mulching in conservation agriculture) were rarely considered in the testing of new-designed bionic parts. For example, residue cover is a key technology of conservation tillage systems, and both the existing crop stubble and the amount of straw mulching can greatly affect the soil cutting process and soil movement. The biomimetic cutting edge of a subsoiler bioinspired by a creature’s claw may not adapt to cutting the crop residue (i.e., stubble and straw). By contrast, the cutting edge shape of a subsoiler’s shank should be designed according to the frictional coefficient between the steel and crop residue–soil complex (ε); i.e., the sliding–cutting angle of the corresponding cutting edge curve (α) should be larger than the ε, so the top cutting edge curve of the shank can produce an effective sliding–cutting effect on the composite material. For the lower cutting edge curve of a subsoiler’s shank, a common biomimetic design bioinspired by creatures’ organs can be performed, as there is mainly soil material at deeper locations. With the above similar criteria, the tillage resistance of ASETs may be further reduced.
This study comprehensively summed up current biomimetic methods for tillage resistance reduction in various agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs), revealed and analyzed their internal mechanisms and the possible limitations of biomimetic methods, quantitatively studied the tillage resistance of various ASETs, as affected by the effects of biomimetic methods, and eventually recommended three future research directions of biomimetic methods to encourage the development of sustainable agriculture. This study provided practical implications for the efficient and effective biomimetic designs of various ASETs with lower tillage resistance. It should be noticed that the review mainly focused on tool performance improvement due to biomimetic methods in terms of reducing tillage resistance. Other performance indices, such as soil disturbance area, ease of implementation, and the complexity of the manufacturing process should also be evaluated in future biomimetic designs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, X.W.; methodology, X.W., S.Z. and R.D.; software, X.W.; formal analysis, X.W. and H.Z.; investigation, X.W., S.Z. and R.D.; resources, X.W.; data curation, X.W.; writing—original draft preparation, X.W.; writing—review and editing, X.W., S.Z. and R.D.; supervision, H.Z. and J.J.; project administration, X.W. and J.J.; funding acquisition, X.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number: 32401718), Key Scientific Research Project of Colleges and Universities of Henan Province (grant number: 24A416001), Experimental Technology Development Foundation of Henan University of Science and Technology (grant number: SY2324006), and Doctoral Research Foundation of Henan University of Science and Technology (grant number: 13480042).

Data Availability Statement

The data reported in this study are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tilman, D.; Cassman, K.G.; Matson, P.A.; Naylor, R.; Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 2002, 418, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sadek, M.A.; Chen, Y.; Zeng, Z.W. Draft force prediction for a high-speed disc implement using discrete element modelling. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 202, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wang, X.Z.; Zhou, H.; Ji, J.T. Effect of mounting angle on bending subsoiling tool-soil interactions using DEM simulations. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, Y.W.; Tong, J.; Ma, Y.H.; Jiang, X.H.; Li, J.G. Biomimetic rotary tillage blade design for reduced torque and energy requirement. Appl. Bionic Biomech. 2021, 2021, 8573897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Chen, Y.; Tessier, S.; Irvine, B. Drill and crop performances as affected by different drill configurations for no-till seeding. Soil Till. Res. 2004, 77, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, J.W.; Wen, N.; Liu, Z.M.; Zhou, W.Q.; Tang, H.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.F. Coupled bionic design of liquid fertilizer deep application type opener based on sturgeon streamline to enhance opening performance in cold soils of Northeast China. Agriculture 2022, 12, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Walunj, A.; Chen, Y.; Tian, Y.Y.; Zeng, Z.W. Modeling soil–plant–machine dynamics using discrete element method: A review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gursoy, S.; Chen, Y.; Li, B. Measurement and modelling of soil displacement from sweeps with different cutting widths. Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 161, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Odey, S.O.; Manuwa, S.I. Subsoiler development trend in the alleviation of soil compaction for sustainable agricultural production. Inter. J. Eng. Invent. 2018, 7, 29–38. [Google Scholar]
  10. Shahgoli, G.; Fielke, J.; Desbiolles, J.; Saunders, C. Optimising oscillation frequency in oscillatory tillage. Soil Till. Res. 2010, 106, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Milkevych, V.; Munkholm, L.J.; Chen, Y.; Nyord, T. Modelling approach for soil displacement in tillage using discrete element method. Soil Till. Res. 2018, 183, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zeng, Z.W.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, X.R. Modelling the interaction of a deep tillage tool with heterogeneous soil. Comput. Electro. Agric. 2017, 143, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ahmadi, I. Effect of soil, machine, and working state parameters on the required draft force of a subsoiler using a theoretical draft-calculating model. Soil Till. Res. 2016, 55, 389–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ucgul, M.; Saunders, C.; Li, P.L.; Lee, S.H.; Desbiolles, J.M.A. Analyzing the mixing performance of a rotary spader using digital image processing and discrete element modelling (DEM). Comput. Electron. Agric. 2018, 151, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, Y.; Cavers, C.; Tessier, S.; Monero, F.; Lobb, D. Short-term tillage effects on soil cone index and plant development in a poorly drained, heavy clay soil. Soil Till. Res. 2005, 82, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mahore, V.; Soni, P.; Paul, A.; Patidar, P.P.; Machavaram, R. Machine learning-based draft prediction for mouldboard ploughing in sandy clay loam soil. J. Terramech. 2024, 111, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, Z.G.; Xue, H.T.; Wang, Y.C.; Xie, K.T.; Deng, Y.X. Design and experiment of panax notoginseng bionic excavating shovel based on EDEM. Trans. CSAM 2022, 53, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shahgoli, G.; Saunders, C.; Desbiolles, J.; Fielke, J. The effect of oscillation angle on the performance of oscillatory tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 104, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, L.; Zhai, Y.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, S. Optimization design and performance study of a subsoiler underlying the tea garden subsoiling mechanism based on bionics and EDEM. Soil Till. Res. 2022, 220, 105375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhao, S.; Wang, J.; Chen, J.; Yang, Y.; Tan, H. Design and experiment of fitting curve subsoiler of conservation tillage. Trans. CSAM 2018, 49, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wang, Y.X.; Zhang, D.; Yang, L.; Cui, T.; Li, Y.H.; Liu, Y.W. Design and experiment of hydraulically self-excited vibration subsoiler. Trans. CSAE 2018, 34, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Araya, K. Optimization of the design of subsoiling and pressurized fluid Injection equipment. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1994, 57, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aikins, K.A.; Barr, J.B.; Antille, D.L.; Ucgul, M.; Jensen, T.A.; Desbiolles, J.M.A. Analysis of effects of bentleg opener geometry on performance in cohesive soi using the discrete element method. Biosyst. Eng. 2021, 209, 106–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bandalan, E.P.; Salokhe, V.M.; Gupta, C.P.; Niyamapa, T. Performance of an oscillating subsoiler in breaking a hardpan. J. Terramech. 1999, 36, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wang, X.Z.; Gao, P.Y.; Yue, B.; Shen, H.; Fu, Z.L.; Zheng, Z.Q.; Zhu, R.X.; Huang, Y.X. Optimisation of installation parameters of subsoiler’ wing using the discrete element method. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 162, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pu, X.; Li, G.J.; Huang, H.L. Preparation, anti-biofouling and drag-reduction properties of a biomimetic shark skin surface. Biol. Open 2016, 5, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, B. Reduction Force and Tillage Performance of a Subsoiler Based on the Discrete Element Method (DEM). Ph.D. Thesis, Northwest A&F University, Xianyang, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  28. Wang, J.W.; Li, X.; Gao, P.; Na, M.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, W. Design and experiment of high efficiency drag reducing shovel for carrot combine harvester. Trans. CSAE 2020, 51, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, X.Z.; Du, R.Z.; Geng, L.X.; Zhou, H.; Ji, J.T. Performance evaluation of a cicada-inspired subsoiling tool using DEM simulations. Biomimetics 2024, 9, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ren, L.Q. Progress in bionic research on drag reduction of ground mechanical desorption. Chin. Sci. Tech. Sci. 2008, 38, 1353–1364. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Tong, J.; Zhang, Z. DEM simulation of bionic subsoilers (tillage depth > 40 cm) with drag reduction and lower soil disturbance characteristics. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2018, 119, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Liu, J.B.; Tang, Z.H.; Zheng, X.; Meng, X.J.; Yang, H.J.; Zhang, L.Y. Design and experiments of the 2FHF-4.56 type base-fertilizer row-following and layered deep fertilizing machine for wide row spacing crops. Trans. CSAE 2022, 38, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Odey, S.O.; Manuwa, S.I. Design steps of narrow tillage tools for draught reduction and increased soil disruption—A review. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2016, 18, 91–102. [Google Scholar]
  34. Raper, R.L.; Schwab, E.B. Development of an in-row subsoiler attachment to reduce smearing. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2009, 25, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Raper, R.L.; Reeves, D.W.; Burmester, C.H.; Schwab, E.B. Tillage depth, tillage timing, and cover crop effects on cotton yield, soil strength, and tillage energy requirements. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2000, 16, 379–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Barr, J.B.; Desbiolles, J.M.A.; Ucgul, M.; Fielke, J.M. Bentleg furrow opener performance analysis using the discrete element method. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 189, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mangus, D.L.; Sharda, A.; Flippo, D.; Strasser, R.; Griffin, T. Development of high-speed camera hardware and software package to evaluate real-time electric seed meter accuracy of a variable rate planter. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2017, 142, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Godwin, R.J. A review of the effect of implement geometry on soil failure and implement forces. Soil Till. Res. 2007, 97, 331–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Raper, R.L.; Bergtold, J.S. In-row subsoiling: A review and suggestions for reducin cost of this conservation tillage operation. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2007, 23, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Askari, M.; Shahgholi, G.; Abbaspour-Gilandeh, Y.; Tash-Shamsabadi, H. The effect of new wings on subsoiler performance. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2016, 32, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ucgul, M.; Saunders, C.; Fielke, J.M. Discrete element modelling of top soil burial using a full scale Mouldboard plough under field conditions. Biosyst. Eng. 2017, 160, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gupta, C.P.; Visvanathan, R. Power requirement of a rotary tillage in saturated soil. Trans. ASAE 1993, 36, 1009–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zheng, K.; Mchugh, A.D.; Li, H.; Wang, Q.; He, J. Design and experiment of anti-vibrating and anti-wrapping rotary components for subsoiler cum rotary tiller. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2019, 12, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Babitsky, L.F.; Sobolevsky, I.V.; Kuklin, V.A. Bionic modelling of the working bodies of machines for surface tillage. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 488, 012041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhao, S.H.; Liu, H.J.; Tan, H.W.; Cao, X.Z.; Zhang, X.M.; Yang, Y.Q. Design and performance experiment of opener based on bionic sailfish head curve. Trans. CSAE 2017, 33, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Li, J.Q.; Yan, Y.P.; Chirende, B.; Wu, X.J.; Wang, Z.L.; Zou, M. Bionic design for reducing adhesive resistance of the ridger inspired by a boar’s head. Appl. Bionic Biomech. 2017, 2017, 8315972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jia, H.L.; Wang, W.J.; Zhuang, J.; Luo, X.F.; Yao, P.F.; Li, Y. Design and experiment of profiling elastic press roller. Trans. CSAM 2015, 46, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tong, J.; Zhang, Q.Z.; Chen, D.H.; Chang, Y.; Wang, H.C. Effects of bionic geometric structure press rollers on reducing rolling resistance and adhesion against soil. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2014, 461, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, X.R.; Chen, Y. Soil disturbance and cutting forces of four different sweeps for mechanical weeding. Soil Till. Res. 2017, 168, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bhushan, B. Biomimetics: Lessons from nature—An overview. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2009, 367, 1445–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Y.; Xue, W.; Ma, Y.; Tong, J.; Liu, X.; Sun, J. DEM and soil bin study on a biomimetic disc furrow opener. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 156, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhao, J.L.; Lu, Y.; Guo, M.Z.; Fu, J.; Wang, Y.J. Design and experiment of bionic stubble breaking-deep loosening combined tillage machine. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2021, 14, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Song, Y.M.; Xie, Y.Z.; Malyarchuk, V.; Xiao, J.L.; Jung, I.; Choi, K.J.; Liu, Z.J.; Park, H.; Lu, C.F.; Kim, R.H.; et al. Digital cameras with designs inspired by the arthropod eye. Nature 2013, 497, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Wu, B.; Zhang, R.; Hou, P.; Tong, J.; Zhou, D.; Yu, H.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, J.; Xin, Y. Bionic nonsmooth drag reduction mathematical model construction and subsoiling verification. Appl. Bionic Biomech. 2021, 2021, 5113453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Yang, Y.W.; Tong, J.; Ma, Y.H.; Li, M.; Jiang, X.H.; Li, J.G. Design and experiment of bionic soil-cutting blade based on multi-claw combination of mole rat. Trans. CSAM 2018, 49, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, Z.H.; Gan, S.; Zuo, G.; Tong, J. Bionic design and performance experiment of sandfish head inspired subsoiler tine. Trans. CSAM 2021, 52, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Yang, Y.; Li, M.; Tong, J.; Ma, Y. Study on the interaction between soil and the five-claw combination of a mole using the discrete element method. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2018, 2018, 7854052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gong, H.; Wang, S. Bionic subsoiler structural design with the finite element analysis. Agric. Mech. Res. 2013, 7, 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  59. Guo, Z.; Tong, J.; Zhou, Z.; Ren, L. Review of subsoiling techniques and their applications. Trans. CSAE 2001, 17, 169–174. [Google Scholar]
  60. Guo, Z.J.; Zhou, Z.L.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z.L. Study on bionic optimization design of soil tillage components. Sci. China 2009, 39, 720–728. [Google Scholar]
  61. Cao, X.Z. Design and Test of No-Till Seeding Opener on Discrete Element Method. Master’s Thesis, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kou, B.X. Drag Reduction Characteristics of Coupling Surface Resembling Earthworm Lubrication Function. Master’s Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  63. Liu, G.M.; Zou, M.; Li, J.Q. An experimental study on the bionic application of the earthworm body surface self-lubrication. Acta Agric. Univ. Jiangxiensis 2010, 32, 378–382. [Google Scholar]
  64. Massah, J.; Fard, M.R.; Aghel, H. An optimized bionic electro-osmotic soil-engaging implement for soil adhesion reduction. J. Terramechanics 2021, 95, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, Y.; Li, N.; Ma, Y.; Tong, J.; Pfleging, W.; Sun, J. Field experiments evaluating a biomimetic shark-inspired (BioS) subsoiler for tillage resistance reduction. Soil Till. Res. 2020, 196, 104432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liu, G.M. Coupling Bionic Research on the Adhesion and Resistance Reduction of the Earthworm Surface. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  67. Qiao, W.; Jiang, C. The mechanism and experimental research on reduction resistance by eletro-osmosis in slide. Trans. CSAM 1994, 4, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  68. Larson, D.L.; Clyma, H.E. Electro-Osmosis Effectiveness in Reducing Tillage Draft Force and Energy Requirements. Trans. ASAE 1995, 38, 1281–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ma, W.P.; You, Y.; Wang, D.C.; Hu, J.N.; Huan, X.L.; Zhu, L. Design and experiment of low-resistance soil loosening shovel for cutting roots and reseeding in perennial alfalfa field. Trans. CSAM 2021, 52, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Song, W.; Jiang, X.; Li, L.; Ren, L.; Tong, J. Increasing the width of disturbance of plough pan with bionic inspired subsoilers. Soil Till. Res. 2022, 220, 105356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yao, K.H.; Chen, W.; Yuan, D.; Chen, X.B.; Peng, Z.M.; Zhu, J.P. Bionic body optimized design and test analysis for shovel surface based on Workbench. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2015, 36, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Guo, M.Z. Design and Key Technology Research of Stubble Breaking and Subsoiling Combined Machine Based on Dynamic Bionics. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bai, J.F.; Li, B.; Lv, X.T.; Chen, J.; Dang, G.R.; Shi, J.T. Structure design and test of the badger claws bionic subsoiler. Agric. Mech. Res. 2016, 4, 175–179. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang, X.B. Design and Experimental Study of Biomimetic Deep Loose Shovel Based on Discrete Element Method. Master’s Thesis, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya’an, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  75. Niu, J.P.; Luo, T.Y.; Xie, J.Q.; Cai, H.X.; Zhou, Z.K.; Chen, J.; Zhang, S. Simulation and experimental study on drag reduction and anti-adhesion of subsoiler with bionic surface. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2022, 15, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Deng, T.; Chang, Y.; Zhao, Y.S.; Cheng, C.Z.; An, C.J.; Zheng, X.Q. Mouldboard plough optimization research by bionic design of tool surface. J. Jilin Agric. Sci. Technol. Univ. 2018, 27, 22–25. [Google Scholar]
  77. Li, J.Q.; Ren, L.Q.; Liu, C.Z.; Chen, B.C. A study on the bionic plow moldboard of reducing soil shhesion and plowing resistance. Trans. CSAM 1996, 27, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  78. Soni, P.; Salokhe, V.M.; Nakashima, H. Modification of a Mouldboard plough surface using arrays of polyethylene protuberances. J. Terramech. 2007, 44, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Xiao, M.H.; Wang, K.X.; Yang, W.; Wang, W.C.; Jiang, F. Design and experiment of bionic rotary blade based on claw toe of gryllotalpa orientalis burmeister. Trans. CSAM 2021, 52, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tong, J.; Ji, W.F.; Jia, H.L.; Chen, D.H.; Yang, X.W. Design and tests of biomimetic blades for soil-rototilling and stubble-breaking. J. Bionic Eng. 2015, 12, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Guo, J.; Zhang, Q.Y.; Muhammad, S.M.; Ji, C.Y.; Zhao, Z. Design and experiment of bionic mole’s toe arrangement serrated blade for soil-rototilling and straw-shattering. Trans. CSAE 2017, 33, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Guan, C.S.; Fu, J.J.; Xu, L.; Jiang, X.Z.; Wang, S.L.; Cui, Z.C. Study on the reduction of soil adhesion and tillage resistance of bionic cutter teeth in secondary soil crushing. Biosyst. Eng. 2022, 213, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sun, J.F.; Chen, H.M.; Wang, Z.M.; Ou, Z.W.; Yang, Z.; Liu, Z.; Duan, J.L. Study on plowing performance of EDEM low-resistance animal bionic device based on red soil. Soil Till. Res. 2020, 196, 104336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zhao, S.H.; Gu, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Lv, J. Bionic design and experiment of potato curved surface sowing furrow opener. Trans. CSAM 2021, 52, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jia, H.L.; Meng, F.H.; Liu, L.J.; Shi, S.; Zhao, J.L.; Zhuang, J. Biomimetic design and experiment of core-share furrow opener. Trans. CSAM 2020, 51, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ma, Y.H.; Ma, S.S.; Jia, H.L.; Liu, Y.C.; Peng, J.; Gao, Z.H. Measurement and analysis on reducing adhesion and resistance of bionic ripple opene. Trans. CSAE 2014, 30, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Tong, J.; Moayad, B.Z.; Ma, Y.H.; Sun, J.Y.; Chen, D.H.; Jia, H.L.; Ren, L.Q. Effects of biomimetic surface designs on furrow opener performance. J. Bionic Eng. 2009, 6, 280–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Zhang, Z.H.; Wang, X.Y.; Tong, J.; Stephen, C. Innovative design and performance evaluation of bionic imprinting toothed wheel. Appl. Bionics Biomech. 2018, 2018, 9806287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Tong, J.; Zhang, Q.Z.; Chang, Y.; Chen, D.H.; Dong, W.H.; Zhang, L.L. Reduction of soil adhesion and traction resistance of ridged bionic press rollers. Trans. CSAM 2014, 45, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Tong, J.; Zhang, Q.Z.; Chang, Y.; Li, M.; Zhang, L.L.; Liu, X. Finite element analysis and experimental verification of bionic press roller in reducing adhesion and resistance. Trans. CSAM 2014, 45, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhou, W.Q.; Ni, X.; Wen, N.; An, T.; Wang, Y.J. Bionic design of liquid fertilizer deep application spray needle, based on badger claw-toe, for improving the operating performance of liquid fertilizer deep application in Northeast China. Processes 2023, 11, 756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Liu, R.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, J.; Lu, Q.; Liu, L.; Li, Y. Optimization and experiment of a disturbance-assisted seed filling high-speed vacuum seed-metering device based on DEM-CFD. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Fan, Y.; Zhao, P.; Qiu, L.C.; Meng, T.T. Simulation analysis and experiment on performance of bionic potato digging shovel. Int. Agric. Eng. J. 2019, 28, 206–216. [Google Scholar]
  94. Huang, W.T. Research and Design of Vibration Bionic Shovel for Garlic Combine Harvester. Master’s Thesis, University of Jinan, Jinan, China, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  95. Li, J.W.; Jiang, X.H.; Ma, Y.H.; Tong, J.; Hu, B. Bionic design of a potato digging shovel with drag reduction based on the discrete element method (DEM) in clay soil. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 7096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tong, J.; Xu, S.; Chen, D.H.; Li, M. Design of a bionic blade for vegetable chopper. J. Bionic Eng. 2017, 14, 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tian, K.P.; Li, X.W.; Shen, C.; Zhang, B.; Huang, J.C.; Wang, J.G.; Zhou, Y. Design and test of cutting blade of cannabis harvester based on longicorn bionic principle. Trans. CSAE 2017, 33, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ren, L.Q.; Liang, Y.H. Coupling Bionics, 1st ed.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  99. Maladen, R.D.; Ding, Y.; Li, C.; Goldman, D.I. Undulatory swimming in sand: Subsurface locomotion of the sandfish lizard. Science 2009, 325, 314–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Wang, X.Z.; Yue, B.; Gao, X.J.; Zheng, Z.Q.; Zhu, R.; Huang, Y. Discrete element simulations and experiments of disturbance behavior as affected by the mounting height of the subsoiler’s wing. Trans. CSAM 2018, 49, 129–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Wang, X.Z.; Li, P.; He, J.P.; Wei, W.Q.; Huang, Y.X. Discrete element simulations and experiments of soil-winged subsoiler interaction. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2021, 14, 50–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Bai, J.F.; Li, B.; Lv, X.T.; Chen, J.; Shi, J.T. Study on vibration anti-drag of the badger claws bionic subsoiler. Agric. Mech. Res. 2016, 5, 224–227. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 14 02163 g001
Figure 1. Elements of biomimetic design for various agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs). (RB, MP, SC, FDA, and HS stand for rotary blade, moldboard plough, stubble cultivator, fertilizer deep applicator, and harvester shovel, respectively).
Figure 1. Elements of biomimetic design for various agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs). (RB, MP, SC, FDA, and HS stand for rotary blade, moldboard plough, stubble cultivator, fertilizer deep applicator, and harvester shovel, respectively).
Agronomy 14 02163 g001
Agronomy 14 02163 g002
Figure 2. Velocity field under different ASETs: (A) subsoiler with an arc-shaped shank (i.e., SAS) and a shank bioinspired by a bear claw (SBS) [27]; (B) five-claw combination blade (FCB) and common blade (CB) [57]; (C) openers with biomimetic, circular, and linear tines [61]; (D) DEM simulations showing the top view of soil disturbance areas from both conventional and bionic fertilizer deep applicators [6]. (SRD, DEM, Wd, and d represent soil rupture distance, discrete element method, soil disturbance width, and working depth, respectively. The red and green colors of particles stand for particles with high and low velocities while blue particles stand for static particles).
Figure 2. Velocity field under different ASETs: (A) subsoiler with an arc-shaped shank (i.e., SAS) and a shank bioinspired by a bear claw (SBS) [27]; (B) five-claw combination blade (FCB) and common blade (CB) [57]; (C) openers with biomimetic, circular, and linear tines [61]; (D) DEM simulations showing the top view of soil disturbance areas from both conventional and bionic fertilizer deep applicators [6]. (SRD, DEM, Wd, and d represent soil rupture distance, discrete element method, soil disturbance width, and working depth, respectively. The red and green colors of particles stand for particles with high and low velocities while blue particles stand for static particles).
Agronomy 14 02163 g002
Agronomy 14 02163 g003
Figure 3. (A) Velocity field in front of subsoilers with chisel cutting share and bionic cutting share and curvature of fitting curve of sandfish head contour [56] and (B) particle velocities in front of a common harvester shovel and a pig-head-inspired harvester shovel [17].
Figure 3. (A) Velocity field in front of subsoilers with chisel cutting share and bionic cutting share and curvature of fitting curve of sandfish head contour [56] and (B) particle velocities in front of a common harvester shovel and a pig-head-inspired harvester shovel [17].
Agronomy 14 02163 g003
Agronomy 14 02163 g004
Figure 4. (A) Lubricant secretion orifices on the earthworm body surface and (B) contact conditions between soil and earthworm body surface during movement in soil [62,63].
Figure 4. (A) Lubricant secretion orifices on the earthworm body surface and (B) contact conditions between soil and earthworm body surface during movement in soil [62,63].
Agronomy 14 02163 g004
Agronomy 14 02163 g005
Figure 5. Mechanism of decreasing tillage resistance [54,65]: (A) soil vortices for subsoiler without riblet, (B) subsoiler with biomimetic riblets extracted from shark skin, (C) soil vortices for subsoiler with biomimetic riblets, (D) soil elements moving on flat surface of shank, and (E) soil elements moving on surface with shark-skin riblet. (Red arrows stand for moving directions of soil particles).
Figure 5. Mechanism of decreasing tillage resistance [54,65]: (A) soil vortices for subsoiler without riblet, (B) subsoiler with biomimetic riblets extracted from shark skin, (C) soil vortices for subsoiler with biomimetic riblets, (D) soil elements moving on flat surface of shank, and (E) soil elements moving on surface with shark-skin riblet. (Red arrows stand for moving directions of soil particles).
Agronomy 14 02163 g005
Agronomy 14 02163 g006
Figure 6. Two new cutting shares with discontinuous and continuous biomimetic structures and corresponding microconvex structures of skin surface from a hammerhead shark.
Figure 6. Two new cutting shares with discontinuous and continuous biomimetic structures and corresponding microconvex structures of skin surface from a hammerhead shark.
Agronomy 14 02163 g006
Agronomy 14 02163 g007
Figure 7. (A) Lizard structure; (B) the burying process of lizard head; high-speed X-ray imaging of lizard above soil surface (C), a part of lizard body buried in the soil (D), and lizard body below soil surface (E); (F) trajectories of lizard at various moments [99]. (The purple and green arrows indicate the positions of the back and front paws of the lizard respectively; the dotted lines stand for the positions of the lizard body).
Figure 7. (A) Lizard structure; (B) the burying process of lizard head; high-speed X-ray imaging of lizard above soil surface (C), a part of lizard body buried in the soil (D), and lizard body below soil surface (E); (F) trajectories of lizard at various moments [99]. (The purple and green arrows indicate the positions of the back and front paws of the lizard respectively; the dotted lines stand for the positions of the lizard body).
Agronomy 14 02163 g007
Agronomy 14 02163 g008
Figure 8. Biomimetic subsoiling tool optimization using experimental method: (A) six biomimetic subsoiling tools with various biomimetic riblets, (B) draught forces from various subsoiling tools, and (C) soil disturbance profiles from various subsoiling tools (STN, SCN, STH, SCH, TT, and TC represent six different biomimetic subsoiling tools; OS represents ordinary subsoiling tool) [31].
Figure 8. Biomimetic subsoiling tool optimization using experimental method: (A) six biomimetic subsoiling tools with various biomimetic riblets, (B) draught forces from various subsoiling tools, and (C) soil disturbance profiles from various subsoiling tools (STN, SCN, STH, SCH, TT, and TC represent six different biomimetic subsoiling tools; OS represents ordinary subsoiling tool) [31].
Agronomy 14 02163 g008
Table 1. Typical agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs) at different growing stages of crops and their functions.
Table 1. Typical agricultural soil-engaging tools (ASETs) at different growing stages of crops and their functions.
ASETsTool StructureASET Function
Tillage toolsSubsoiling tool [39,40]Agronomy 14 02163 i001Disrupt hardpans and remove soil compaction to encourage soil water infiltration, fertilizer absorption and utilization, and growth of crop roots.
Moldboard plough [41]Agronomy 14 02163 i002(1) Provide soil inversion that helps to bury trash, weeds, and crop residue; (2) create the basis for a seedbed; (3) loosen and aerate soil.
Rotary tool [4,14,42,43]Agronomy 14 02163 i003Complete the operations of soil mixing, turning, pulverizing, puddling, and leveling and, thereby, create good seedbeds for crop growing.
Stubble cultivator [44]Agronomy 14 02163 i004Destroy weeds and loose soil without wrapping it when caring for fallows and preparing soil for sowing to create a moisture-protective layer with an optimal density.
Sowing toolsFurrow opener [45]Agronomy 14 02163 i005Create a furrow to place seeds without disturbing excessive soil and mixing surface dry soil and deeper moist soil.
Ridger [46]Agronomy 14 02163 i006(1) Provide soil inversion; (2) loosen and aerate the soil; (3) increase the thickness of tillage layer soil and enhance crop root development.
Press roller [47,48]Agronomy 14 02163 i007Break up large clods and eliminate large gaps between clods to reduce soil moisture evaporation and prevent fertilizer from flowing deep along gaps.
Crop-managing toolsFertilizer deep applicator [32]Agronomy 14 02163 i008Apply fertilizer to the depth near the crop root to improve the efficiency of fertilizer utilization and reduce the volatilization and environmental pollution of fertilizer.
Shovel for mechanical weeding [49]Agronomy 14 02163 i009As an environmentally friendly practice, mechanical weeding can kill weeds by modes of burying, cutting, and uprooting to keep weeds under control during the early growth stage of crops and increase the ability of crops to compete for fertilizer, water, and sunlight.
Harvesting tools [17]Agronomy 14 02163 i010Reduce the difficulty in harvesting crop roots and improve harvesting efficiency.
Table 2. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) and their bionic prototypes for subsoiling tools (SSTs).
Table 2. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) and their bionic prototypes for subsoiling tools (SSTs).
BMPSSTPrototypeImprovement of Tool Performance
Shank bioinspired by anteater claw [69]Agronomy 14 02163 i011Agronomy 14 02163 i012Draught force (DF) was 7.64% lower than subsoiler with an arc-shaped shank (SAS).
Cutting share and shank bioinspired by mole’s forepaw [70]Agronomy 14 02163 i013Agronomy 14 02163 i014DFs were 6.60–14.65% lower at working depth of 300–460 mm than standard subsoiler without biomimetic riblets (SSWB).
Shank bioinspired by mole cricket forefoot [19]Agronomy 14 02163 i015Agronomy 14 02163 i016DF and energy consumption were 16.3% and 9.6% lower than the SAS, respectively.
Shank bioinspired by pangolin claw [71]Agronomy 14 02163 i017Agronomy 14 02163 i018DF was 11.11% lower than subsoiler with SAS.
Shank bioinspired by Oryctolagus cuniculus’ claw [72]Agronomy 14 02163 i019Agronomy 14 02163 i020DFs were 6.4–7.5% lower than the SAS.
Shank bioinspired by badger claw [73]Agronomy 14 02163 i021Agronomy 14 02163 i022DFs were 10.1–22.4% lower than the SAS (working speed: 0.6–0.8 m s−1).
Cutting share bioinspired by cicada head [29]Agronomy 14 02163 i023Agronomy 14 02163 i024DFs were 2.8–17.7% lower than the SAS (working depth: 250–350 mm; working speed: 0.5–2.5 ms−1).
Cutting share bioinspired by rice eel head [74]Agronomy 14 02163 i025Agronomy 14 02163 i026DFs were 1.2–8.6% lower than the SAS.
Cutting share bioinspired by shark skin [75] Agronomy 14 02163 i027Agronomy 14 02163 i028Draught and vertical forces were 21.3% and 24.8% lower than the SSWB.
Note: “BC”, “BS”, “BR” stand for “biomimetic curve”, “biomimetic surface”, and “biomimetic riblet”, respectively.
Table 3. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) of other tillage tools (TLTs) and their original prototypes.
Table 3. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) of other tillage tools (TLTs) and their original prototypes.
BMPTLTPrototypeImprovement of Tool Performance
Moldboard ploughMoldboard plough with dung-beetle-skin-inspired bulge [76,77,78]Agronomy 14 02163 i029Agronomy 14 02163 i030Draught forces (DF) were 2–36% lower than moldboard plough without bionic bulge.
Stubble cultivatorStubble cultivator with wings bioinspired by beetle’s digging leg curve and angle of back support foot [44] Agronomy 14 02163 i031Agronomy 14 02163 i032DFs were 12.46–18.99% lower than conventional stubble cultivator.
Rotary tillage toolsMole-cricket-toe-inspired rotary blade [79]Agronomy 14 02163 i033Agronomy 14 02163 i034Mean torque values (TVs) were 3.49–10.53% lower than the conventional rotary blade.
Mole-rat-toe-inspired rotary blade [80] Agronomy 14 02163 i035Agronomy 14 02163 i036TVs of rotary blade were 0.63–6.97% lower at various rotary speeds (180–460 r min−1) than the universal blade (UB).
Arrangement of mole-rat-claw-inspired rotary blade [81]Agronomy 14 02163 i037Agronomy 14 02163 i038TV and power consumption (PC) were 1.23% and 3.07% lower, respectively, than the national rotary blade.
Mole-rat-claw-inspired rotary blade [4] Agronomy 14 02163 i039Agronomy 14 02163 i040TVs of rotary blade were 16.88–21.80% lower at various rotary (254–267 r min−1) and forward speeds (1–5 km h−1) and tillage depths (80–160 mm) than UB.
Locust-mouthparts-inspired rotary disc [52]Agronomy 14 02163 i041Agronomy 14 02163 i042TVs were 31.25–33.33% lower than the conventional rotary discs.
Badger-claw-inspired rotary blade [82]Agronomy 14 02163 i043Agronomy 14 02163 i044PC was 2.95–30.26% lower than the conventional rotary blade.
Brown-bear-claw-inspired rotary blade [83] Agronomy 14 02163 i045Agronomy 14 02163 i046PC was 34.9% lower than the conventional rotary blade.
Note: “BC”, “BSA” stand for “biomimetic curve” and “biomimetic sweep angle”, respectively.
Table 4. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) of sowing and crop-managing tools (SCMTs) and corresponding bionic prototypes.
Table 4. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) of sowing and crop-managing tools (SCMTs) and corresponding bionic prototypes.
BMPSCMTPrototypeImprovement of Tool Performance
Sowing toolsSailfish-head-inspired opener [45] Agronomy 14 02163 i047Agronomy 14 02163 i048Draught forces (DFs) were 5.0% lower than the conventional opener (CO).
Yellowfin-tuna-jaw-inspired potato opener [84]Agronomy 14 02163 i049Agronomy 14 02163 i050DFs were 9.0% lower than the CO.
Badger-tooth-inspired opener [85] Agronomy 14 02163 i051Agronomy 14 02163 i052DFs were 8.04–8.71% lower at speeds of 3.6–7.2 km h−1 than the CO.
Contracted earthworm-head-structure-inspired opener [86] Agronomy 14 02163 i053Agronomy 14 02163 i054DFs were 18.30–33.40% lower than the COs.
Dung-beetle-head-skin-inspired furrow opener [87]Agronomy 14 02163 i055Agronomy 14 02163 i056DFs were 13.90–36.70% lower than COs without bulges.
Boar-head-inspired ridger [46]Agronomy 14 02163 i057Agronomy 14 02163 i058DFs were 7.46–16.67% lower than the conventional ridger.
Toothed roller with dung-beetle-end-tooth-inspired tooth [88]Agronomy 14 02163 i059Agronomy 14 02163 i060DFs were 9.50–16.50% lower than the conventional toothed roller.
Press roller with dung-beetle-head-inspired bulges [48,89,90]Agronomy 14 02163 i061Agronomy 14 02163 i062DFs were 11.75–41.08% lower than the conventional press roller.
Crop-managing toolsSturgeon-body-structure-inspired liquid fertilizer deep applicator [6] Agronomy 14 02163 i063Agronomy 14 02163 i064DFs were 7.20–21.30% lower than the conventional fertilizer deep applicator.
Liquid fertilizer deep applicator bioinspired by badger claw [91] Agronomy 14 02163 i065Agronomy 14 02163 i066Power consumption was 9.52~40.50% lower than the conventional applicator.
Fertilizer applicator with biomimetic shank bioinspired by protrusion structure of dung beetle [92]Agronomy 14 02163 i067Agronomy 14 02163 i068DFs were 42.60% lower than the conventional fertilizer applicator.
Note: “BC”, “BR” stand for “biomimetic curve” and “biomimetic riblet”, respectively.
Table 5. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) of harvesting tools and their original prototypes.
Table 5. Biomimetic parts (BMPs) of harvesting tools and their original prototypes.
BMPHarvesting ToolPrototypeImprovement of Tool Performance
Harvester shovel’s tine bioinspired by badger claw [28]Agronomy 14 02163 i069Agronomy 14 02163 i070Draught forces (DFs) were 5.79% lower than the conventional chisel tine.
Harvester shovel bioinspired by pig head [17,93]Agronomy 14 02163 i071Agronomy 14 02163 i072Digging resistance was 19.15–24.29% lower than the plane harvester shovel.
Mole-cricket-head-inspired harvester shovel [94]Agronomy 14 02163 i073Agronomy 14 02163 i074DFs were 40.1% lower than the chisel tine.
Pangolin-skin-inspired potato digging shovel [95]Agronomy 14 02163 i075Agronomy 14 02163 i076DFs were 24.03% lower than the shovel without bionic bulge.
Bamboo-weevil-larva-mandible-inspired blade for vegetable chopper [96]Agronomy 14 02163 i077Agronomy 14 02163 i078Energy consumption was 12.8% lower than the conventional blade.
Biomimetic cutting blade
of cannabis harvester bioinspired by mouthparts palate of batocera horsfieldi [97]		Agronomy 14 02163 i079Agronomy 14 02163 i080Average maximum cutting force and fuel consumption were 7.4% and 8.0%, respectively, lower than the ordinary blade.
Note: “BC” stands for biomimetic curve.
Table 6. Comparisons of tillage resistance reduction rates (TFRRs) of various ASETs.
Table 6. Comparisons of tillage resistance reduction rates (TFRRs) of various ASETs.
ASETsTFRR for Various ASETs under Different Soil Types (%)
Less Viscous SoilViscous SoilMean
Tillage toolsSubsoiling tool10.17 ± 8.7213.67 ± 9.2311.00 ± 8.97
Moldboard plough-14.61 ± 5.2014.61 ± 5.20
Rotary tillage tool10.13 ± 9.2016.29 ± 13.4011.98 ± 11.01
Stubble cultivator-16.61 ± 2.9516.61 ± 2.95
Sowing toolsOpener7.00 ± 2.0017.27 ± 9.8315.80 ± 9.81
Ridger-11.29 ± 3.9211.29 ± 3.92
Roller-20.87 ± 10.7020.87 ± 10.70
Crop-managing toolsFertilizer deep applicator30.87 ± 15.1213.90 ± 5.8021.17 ± 13.70
Harvesting toolsHarvester shovel22.33 ± 12.2822.74 ± 4.5922.56 ± 8.88
Note: Values behind and before the symbol “±” stand for standard deviation (STD) and the average, respectively.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Du, R.; Zhou, H.; Ji, J. Recent Advances in Biomimetic Methods for Tillage Resistance Reduction in Agricultural Soil-Engaging Tools. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092163

AMA Style

Wang X, Zhang S, Du R, Zhou H, Ji J. Recent Advances in Biomimetic Methods for Tillage Resistance Reduction in Agricultural Soil-Engaging Tools. Agronomy. 2024; 14(9):2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092163

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Xuezhen, Shihao Zhang, Ruizhi Du, Hanmi Zhou, and Jiangtao Ji. 2024. "Recent Advances in Biomimetic Methods for Tillage Resistance Reduction in Agricultural Soil-Engaging Tools" Agronomy 14, no. 9: 2163. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14092163

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop