## 3 Results and Discussion  
### _Clamping Test_  
The clamping structure of the proposed clamping and cutting arrangement device for Solanaceae scion and stock seedlings was designed with four claws and eight claws, and the clamping power source was selected from the RG2 and MHL2 grippers, being combined into four modes. The clamping results of the eggplant and tomato seedlings are shown in Table 2. Using the same clamping structure and power source, the three modes -- that is, the 4-jaw RG2, 4-jaw MHL2, and 8-jaw MHL2 modes -- exhibit no significant difference in clamping different seedlings, the success rate being over 98%. The success rates of the 8-jaw RG2 mode for clamping eggplant and tomato seedlings are 60.58% and 85.58%, respectively, with significant differences -- that is, it performs better for clamping tomato seedlings. Comparing the four modes for clamping eggplant seedlings, there is no significant difference among the three modes (4-claw RG2, 4-claw MHL2, and 8-claw MHL2), but there are significant differences using the 8-claw RG2 mode. However, there is no significant difference among the four modes for clamping tomato seedlings. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Clip Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Gripper Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**The Seedlings Clamping Survival Rate (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **Eggplant Stock** & **Tomato Scion** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Four claws} & RG2 & 100 A12  & 98.08 Aa \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Eight claws} & RG2 & 60.38 Bb & 85.58 Ab \\  & MHL2 & 100 Aa & 99.04 Aa \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Significance (\(p\leq 0.05\))} & \multirow{4}{*}{**Clip type (C)} & *** & \multirow{4}{*}{*} \\  & Gripper type (G) & *** & *** \\ \cline{1-1}  & C \(\times\) G & *** & *** \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: A comparison of the seedling-clamping success rate between clip type and gripper type. Figure 8: The two types of cutters for the oblique cutting structure. (**a**) Short knife; (**b**) long knife. Compared using two-way ANOVA, for the clamping of eggplant seedlings there is a correlation between the gripper type and power source (\(p<0.001\)), different gripper types (\(p<0.001\)) and different power sources (\(p<0.001\)) being significantly different. For the clamping of tomato seedlings there is a correlation between the gripper type and the power source (\(p=0.04\)), there being significant differences between the different gripper types (\(p=0.01\)) and different power sources (\(p<0.001\)). It is evident from the above that the 4-jaw clamping structure is more consistent than the 8-jaw clamping structure. It is speculated that the greater the number of clamping jaws, the smaller the force distributed by the single-jaw clamping process, resulting in a decrease in the clamping success rate. The MHL2 pneumatic gripper and RG2 electric gripper have different gripping results due to their different power sources. There are two reasons for seedling clamping failures:  
* Seedlings loosened when pulled up from the plug, accounting for 6.37% of the total clamping, which occurred when the RG2 electric clamper clamped eggplant seedlings. * The seedlings were located at the edge or corner of holes, so the clamping structure could not clamp them effectively, accounting for 1.2% of the clamping total. The clamping process and range of the clamping structure are as shown in Figure 9.  
When the clamping structure enters the seedling try, if the seedlings grow in the red area of the hole grid there is a high probability that they cannot enter the clamping range (green area). Moreover, the seedlings entering the clamping range are clamped toward the center point due to the action of the clamping structure, completing the seedling-clamping operation. The differences between the two grippers can be explained as follows:  
* The MHL2 gripper grips in a parallel path, and the RG2 gripper grips in an arcuate path of radius 55 mm.