Abstract
Manual removal of the main stem tips of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is a traditional topping approach in China. However, chemical topping has become an inevitable trend. Therefore, it is of great significance to study the effect and appropriate concentration of agents for advancement of cotton whole process mechanization management technology. A two-year field experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of different methods of topping on cotton yield and plant architecture in Shihezi, Xinjiang, China. Plant topping included manual topping, non-topping as the control, and chemical topping (high, medium, and low concentrations of topping agent) to determine a suitable topping method and topping agent concentration for machine-picked cotton. Chemical topping was performed using fortified mepiquat chloride (DPC+). Chemical topping and manual topping increased seed cotton yield compared with non-topping. Compared with non-topping, high, medium, and low concentrations of topping agent significantly increased the yield by 19.5–27.9%, 24.1–29.4%, and 24.3–28.4%, respectively. Topping treatment mainly regulated yield and total boll number per unit area by affecting the boll number per plant and had a certain positive effect on fiber strength but no significant effect on boll weight. Chemical topping affected both vertical and horizontal plant architecture characteristics of cotton; the plant height of low-, medium-, and high-concentration treatments increased by 7.2–11.4 cm, 4.0–5.7 cm, and 2.3–4.4 cm, respectively, compared with manual topping and decreased by 5.1–7.8 cm, 8.3–13.5 cm, and 9.4–16.9 cm, respectively, compared with non-topping. The number of main stem internodes was significantly different between high- and low-concentration treatments, which showed that the higher the concentration, the lower the number of the main stem internodes. Chemical topping controlled the increase in the length of the upper branches, the higher the concentration, the lower the increase in the length of the upper fruit branch. Compared with non-topping, the medium concentration of topping agent controlled the number of fruit branches, similar to manual topping. The role of upper internode length of cotton cannot be ignored under chemical topping. The peak leaf area index (LAI) of medium- and high-concentration treatments was delayed for 1 week in the late growth period (after topping for 28 d) compared with manual topping. The LAI values were high, and the duration of high values was prolonged. The optimal chemical topping agent was the medium concentration.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 20
Claim · model-written summary
Manual topping increased seed cotton yield over non-topping.
- Taxon
- Cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- manual toppinge0
- Outcome
- seed cotton yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Chemical topping and manual topping increased seed cotton yield compared with non-topping”
Claim · model-written summary
high concentration chemical topping increased yield 19.5–27.9% over non-topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- highe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 19.5–27.9%e0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Compared with non-topping, high, medium, and low concentrations of topping agent significantly increased the yield by 19.5–27.9%, 24.1–29.4%, and 24.3–28.4%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
medium concentration chemical topping increased yield 24.1–29.4% over non-topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- mediume0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24.1–29.4%e0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Compared with non-topping, high, medium, and low concentrations of topping agent significantly increased the yield by 19.5–27.9%, 24.1–29.4%, and 24.3–28.4%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
low concentration chemical topping increased yield 24.3–28.4% over non-topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- lowe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24.3–28.4%e0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Compared with non-topping, high, medium, and low concentrations of topping agent significantly increased the yield by 19.5–27.9%, 24.1–29.4%, and 24.3–28.4%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Topping regulated yield and bolls per area through bolls per plant.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Topping treatmente0
- Outcome
- yield and total boll number per unit areae0
- Qualifier
- affecting the boll number per plante0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Topping treatment mainly regulated yield and total boll number per unit area by affecting the boll number per plant and had a certain positive effect on fiber strength but no significant effect on boll weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Topping had a positive effect on fiber strength.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Topping treatmente0
- Outcome
- fiber strengthe0
- Direction
- positive effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Topping treatment mainly regulated yield and total boll number per unit area by affecting the boll number per plant and had a certain positive effect on fiber strength but no significant effect on boll weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Topping had no significant effect on boll weight.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- Topping treatmente0
- Outcome
- boll weighte0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Topping treatment mainly regulated yield and total boll number per unit area by affecting the boll number per plant and had a certain positive effect on fiber strength but no significant effect on boll weight”
Claim · model-written summary
low-concentration topping increased plant height by 7.2–11.4 cm versus manual topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- low-e0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.2–11.4 cme0
- Comparator
- manual toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the plant height of low-, medium-, and high-concentration treatments increased by 7.2–11.4 cm, 4.0–5.7 cm, and 2.3–4.4 cm, respectively, compared with manual topping and decreased by 5.1–7.8 cm, 8.3–13.5 cm, and 9.4–16.9 cm, respectively, compared with non-topping”
Claim · model-written summary
medium-concentration topping increased plant height by 4.0–5.7 cm versus manual topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- medium-e0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.0–5.7 cme0
- Comparator
- manual toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the plant height of low-, medium-, and high-concentration treatments increased by 7.2–11.4 cm, 4.0–5.7 cm, and 2.3–4.4 cm, respectively, compared with manual topping and decreased by 5.1–7.8 cm, 8.3–13.5 cm, and 9.4–16.9 cm, respectively, compared with non-topping”
Claim · model-written summary
high-concentration topping increased plant height by 2.3–4.4 cm versus manual topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- high-concentration treatmentse0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 2.3–4.4 cme0
- Comparator
- manual toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the plant height of low-, medium-, and high-concentration treatments increased by 7.2–11.4 cm, 4.0–5.7 cm, and 2.3–4.4 cm, respectively, compared with manual topping and decreased by 5.1–7.8 cm, 8.3–13.5 cm, and 9.4–16.9 cm, respectively, compared with non-topping”
Claim · model-written summary
low-concentration topping decreased plant height by 5.1–7.8 cm versus non-topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- low-e0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 5.1–7.8 cme0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the plant height of low-, medium-, and high-concentration treatments increased by 7.2–11.4 cm, 4.0–5.7 cm, and 2.3–4.4 cm, respectively, compared with manual topping and decreased by 5.1–7.8 cm, 8.3–13.5 cm, and 9.4–16.9 cm, respectively, compared with non-topping”
Claim · model-written summary
medium-concentration topping decreased plant height by 8.3–13.5 cm versus non-topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- medium-e0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 8.3–13.5 cme0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the plant height of low-, medium-, and high-concentration treatments increased by 7.2–11.4 cm, 4.0–5.7 cm, and 2.3–4.4 cm, respectively, compared with manual topping and decreased by 5.1–7.8 cm, 8.3–13.5 cm, and 9.4–16.9 cm, respectively, compared with non-topping”
Claim · model-written summary
high-concentration topping decreased plant height by 9.4–16.9 cm versus non-topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- high-concentration treatmentse0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 9.4–16.9 cme0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the plant height of low-, medium-, and high-concentration treatments increased by 7.2–11.4 cm, 4.0–5.7 cm, and 2.3–4.4 cm, respectively, compared with manual topping and decreased by 5.1–7.8 cm, 8.3–13.5 cm, and 9.4–16.9 cm, respectively, compared with non-topping”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher chemical topping concentration lowered main stem internode number.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- concentratione0
- Outcome
- number of the main stem internodese0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“the higher the concentration, the lower the number of the main stem internodes”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher topping concentration further limited upper fruit branch length increase.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- concentratione0
- Outcome
- increase in the length of the upper fruit branche0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Chemical topping controlled the increase in the length of the upper branches, the higher the concentration, the lower the increase in the length of the upper fruit branch”
Claim · model-written summary
Medium concentration topping controlled fruit branch number to a level similar to manual topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- medium concentration of topping agente0
- Outcome
- number of fruit branchese0
- Direction
- controllede0
- Qualifier
- similar to manual toppinge0
- Comparator
- non-toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“Compared with non-topping, the medium concentration of topping agent controlled the number of fruit branches, similar to manual topping”
Claim · model-written summary
medium-concentration topping delayed peak LAI one week versus manual topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- medium- and high-concentration treatmentse0
- Outcome
- peak leaf area index (LAI)e0
- Direction
- delayede0
- Value
- 1 weeke0
- Comparator
- manual toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“The peak leaf area index (LAI) of medium- and high-concentration treatments was delayed for 1 week in the late growth period (after topping for 28 d) compared with manual topping”
Claim · model-written summary
high-concentration topping delayed peak LAI one week versus manual topping.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- high-concentration treatmentse0
- Outcome
- peak leaf area index (LAI)e0
- Direction
- delayede0
- Value
- 1 weeke0
- Comparator
- manual toppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“The peak leaf area index (LAI) of medium- and high-concentration treatments was delayed for 1 week in the late growth period (after topping for 28 d) compared with manual topping”
Claim · model-written summary
Chemical topping maintained high LAI values for a prolonged duration.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- duration of high valuese0
- Direction
- prolongede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“The LAI values were high, and the duration of high values was prolonged”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identified medium concentration chemical topping as optimal.
- Taxon
- CottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- optimal chemical topping agent was the medium concentratione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Cotton”
e0“The optimal chemical topping agent was the medium concentration”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results differ
48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
72 papers more in this group
See all 76 papers →pruning · quality: grain · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.