Optimal combination of canopy management and planting density for yield enhancement in late-sown cotton

Optimal combination of canopy management and planting density for yield enhancement in late-sown cotton | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Optimal combination of canopy management and planting density for yield enhancement in late-sown cotton Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat, Fahd Rasul, Muhammad Zia Ul Haq, Muhammad Talha Aslam, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882157/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 19 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Plant Biology → Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Cotton growers face low yield problems in late-sown cotton after wheat harvest. The present study aims to explore the optimal combination of different canopy management methods and planting densities for yield enhancement in late-sown cotton. A two-year (2022 and 2023) field experiment was carried out in the agronomic student research area at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan (31.43° N and 73.07° E). The field experimental design was a randomized complete block design with a factorial arrangement comprising two factors: planting density (D 0 : 87489 plants hm − 2 , D 1 : 58326 plants hm − 2 ) and canopy management techniques (C 0 : control, C 1 : pruning, C 2 : chemical topping, C 3 : manual topping, C 4 : chemical topping + pruning and C 5 : manual topping + pruning). Results Chemical topping plus pruning was found to be the most effective at increasing the sympodial branch count, with an increase of 38%, compared with the control at planting density D 1, which also increased the number of bolls and the yield of seed cotton. On the other hand, manual topping plus pruning was found to outperform other methods in improving fiber traits. Conclusions When an optimal combination of chemical topping plus pruning is chosen, cotton yield can be increased in late snowy cotton, which can be a promising technique for sustainable cotton production in cotton‒wheat cropping systems. Chemical topping Crop architecture Planting density Climate change Fiber traits Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) is one of the most important cash crops worldwide, and it has complex basal and distal branching patterns. It is extensively produced for its natural fiber and oil [ 1 ]. Cotton in Pakistan faces a decline in production, especially when it is sown late due to wheat harvest conditions; hence, it has a shorter growing season, which results in late boll maturation and a reduction in yield and fiber quality [ 2 ]. Cotton production declined in 2022 due to pest infestations in Pakistan and is expected to increase from 2023-24 through the implementation of pest control measures and increasing domestic demand for cotton [ 3 ]. Cotton is a perennial plant whose growth pattern is indeterminate, indicating the continuous growth of the apical meristem as well as reproductive development [ 4 , 5 ]. Sympodial branches of cotton are mainly responsible for seed yield, whereas vegetative branches (VBs) give rise to sympodial branches at leaf axils, which indirectly set bolls [ 6 ]. The monopodial growth of vegetative branches creates a larger plant structure, which becomes difficult to manage [ 7 ]. Excessive vegetative branches result in reduced light reaching plants and poor ventilation, which causes an increase in rotten bolls and low-quality fibers, negatively impacting yield [ 8 ]. Thus, removing these branches is a practice that many farmers use to overcome these challenges. Different studies have shown that removing VB at low planting densities does not impact cotton yield; in fact, it enhances the number of bolls on fruiting branches [ 9 ] and increases yield in later growth stages [ 10 – 12 ]. Apical dominance makes canopy management even more complex, necessitating topping to control main stem growth and redirect resource allocation toward bolls and secondary branches after peak flowering [ 11 ]. Manual topping is an effective method for controlling excessive vegetative growth [ 13 ], enhancing defense against pests [ 14 ], reducing bollworm infestation [ 15 ] and increasing yield [ 16 ]. Although manual topping is effective, it is laborious and requires skilled workers who can manage only 0.2 hectares per day [ 17 ]. There are several challenges, including potential damage to plants although the fact that this remains a common practice until a new method is not adopted [ 18 ]. When any plant organ becomes injured, cotton has a strong self-regulation system, and it quickly regulates other organs, resulting in strong plasticity toward external damage [ 19 ]. Mepiquat chloride is a widely used growth regulator in agriculture that regulates growth by altering the architecture of cotton [ 20 ]. Chemical topping via a growth regulator such as mepiquate chloride was found to be an alternative to manual topping, which controls the growth of the main stem, regulates the source‒sink relationship [ 21 ], improves boll production and compacts the plant structure [ 16 , 22 ]. However, the physiological mechanism of chemical topping with other pruning methods remains underexplored. The interplay between assimilate portioning and yield formation in cotton, specifically under canopy-altered structures through topping and VB removal, is critical [ 23 ]. The effects of pruning on physiological processes and how they influence cotton yield and fiber quality are not completely understood. Previous research revealed that simplified pruning techniques could reduce labor input via the canopy photosynthesis rate and assimilate distribution [ 24 ]. Temperature has a strong influence on cotton phenological traits, but key factors that stabilize yield in late-sown cotton are not fully understood. The effect of MC varies with planting density [ 25 ]. Plant density plays a significant role in cotton yield, as higher density increases lint yield and boll density, making it a promising agronomic practice for enhancing overall production [ 26 ]. Late sowing results in increased aging of cotton leaves, which slows vegetative growth and increases boll opening [ 27 ]. During later growth stages, the temperature starts to decrease, which reduces flower opening [ 28 ]. A meta-analysis by Adams et al. [ 29 ] revealed that cotton plants compete for space and nutrients at high density, decreasing boll production and resulting in lower yields. This study explored the need for optimal canopy management combined with various planting densities in late-sown cotton under field conditions by assessing the impacts of manual topping, chemical topping, and pruning combined with chemical and manual topping on cotton bolls, yield and fiber quality. The goal was to identify a combination that is labor efficient and has the potential to increase cotton yield under late sowing conditions. Materials and methods Field experimentation A field experiment was carried out at the Agronomic Research Area at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan (31.4294° N and 73.0750° E), between 2022 and 2023. The average rainfall and temperature during the cotton growing seasons of 2022 and 2023 are shown in Fig. 1 . The cotton variety FH-333 was sown on June 1 during both years. To maintain the target planting density, the plants were thinned manually, leaving healthy plants and removing weak plants (26 days after sowing). The field trials were sown in a randomized complete block design under a factorial arrangement comprising two factors (planting density and canopy management). The planting density was maintained at two levels, i.e., D 0 : 87489 plants hm − 2 and D 1 : 58326 plants ha − 2 . Canopy management has six levels, i.e., C 0 : control; C 1 : pruning at 70 DAS; C 2 : chemical topping; C 3 : manual topping; C 4 : chemical topping + pruning; and C 5 : manual topping + pruning. Chemical topping was performed at a rate of 120 g ha⁻¹ on the 70th day of emergence during the flowering stage to inhibit vegetative growth. The remaining treatments were applied on the same day. Crops were sown via the manual dibbling method. The seed rate was 20 kg·hm − 2, with a row-to-row distance of 75 cm and plant-to-plant distances of 15 and 22 cm for D 0 and D 1 , respectively. Irrigation was performed at 7–20-day intervals starting 7 days after sowing. The recommended doses of phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen were applied in the form of MOP, DAP and urea at rates of 75, 88 and 200 kg/ha, respectively. Half of the nitrogen was applied as a basal dose, and the remaining half was applied 30 days after sowing. The soil samples were taken from the ground after composite samples were obtained and analyzed at the Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Table 1 ). Glyphosate (2.5 L/ha) was used as a post-emergence herbicide to keep crops weed free and to avoid weed crop competition. Insecticides and pesticides were used on the basis of the severity of pest or bollworm attacks. Acetamipirid at 300 g/ha was used for the control of white fly adults, aphids and mealy bugs during the whole growing season. Dinotefuran was used at 250 g/ha to control Jassid during the crop-growing season. Methoxyfenozide at 500 ml/ha was used for the control of armyworm. Spintoram at 125 ml/ha was used for the control of thrips and bollworms. The remaining necessary agronomic practices were maintained during the full growing season. Table 1 Soil physicochemical attributes of the experimental site during 2022 and 2023 Characteristics 2022 2023 Sand (%) 52.2 52.5 Silt (%) 27.1 27.0 Clay (%) 19.1 19.0 Texture class sandy clay loam sandy clay loam Saturation percentage (%) 36.0 35.8 pH 7.8 7.9 ECe (dS m − 1 ) 0.38 0.39 Available phosphorous content (mg·kg − 1 ) 23 22.8 Available potassium content (mg·kg − 1 ) 186 185 Organic matter content (%) 1.43 1.41 Total nitrogen content (%) 0.07 0.068 Data collection Data were collected for agronomic parameters such as plant height (cm), monopodial branches per plant, sympodial branches per plant, bolls per plant, seed cotton yield (kg ha − 1 ), seed index (g), seed oil content (%) and cotton quality parameters such as short fiber index (SFI %), breaking elongation (%), fiber strength (g/tex), fiber length (mm), uniformity index (%) and micronaire. Agronomic and yield parameters Five randomly tagged plants were selected from all 36 plots for the measurement of plant height at maturity. The plant base and tip heights were measured in cm from five different tagged plants from every plot. The average of these five plants was subsequently converted into one plant. Data were obtained via the same procedure for the second year. Branches that carry sympodial branches are called monopodial branches. Some sympodials are indirect, and some are directly attached to the main stem. Five plants were randomly chosen and tagged. Monopodial branches were calculated from every tagged plant plot, and their means were estimated. Fruit-bearing branches are called sympodial branches. Five randomly tagged plants were selected. Sympodial branches were finally calculated from every tagged plant plot, and their means were subsequently estimated. Healthy and mature bolls from each plot were counted from five different tagged plants. The average number of bolls on one plant is subsequently determined by how many bolls there are on that plant. Seed cotton was harvested manually two times at maturity each year. Then, it was weighed after being thoroughly dried under the sun. After being weighed, the cotton seeds were ginned with a laboratory gin. The total seed yield (kg ha − 2 ) was determined for each plot. One hundred randomly selected fuzzy seeds were weighed in grams, and the results provided a seed index. Fiber quality attributes and oil contents Ten grams of lint was taken from every replicate after ginning. The Department of Fiber and Textile Technology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad platform was used to determine the fiber quality parameters. High-volume instrument analysis (HV1-900 Zellwegar Uster Ltd., Switzerland) was used for the determination of the physical properties of the fibers, i.e., length, strength, elongation, uniformity and micronaire. The ASTM standard (1997) procedure was adopted. The length at 2.5% span length was considered the fiber length. The 2.5% span length and 50% span length were measured via an optical system through the HVI-900 length module. The 2.5% span length was determined and interpreted in mm. The micronaire is essentially the measurement of fiber weight in µg per unit length of fiber. The pressure gradient around the chamber helps to evaluate the micronaire value as the air stream is transferred via a given weight of fiber contained in the chamber of a fixed volume of module 920. In this way, fiber fineness (micronaire) was determined and interpreted in µg/inch. The ratio of the breaking strength of a bundle of fibers to its weight is the fiber ratio. The length/strength module-920 of HVI-920 is used for measuring the fiber strength via the principle of the contrast rate of force application on the clamped fiber of the sample taken for fiber length measurements. The fiber strength was determined and interpreted in g tex − 1 . The fiber uniformity ratio was calculated via the formula HVI-920 was also used for the measurement of fiber strength. The Soxhlet method was used for oil extraction. The first 20-gram sample was finely ground and sun-dried and then placed in a cellulose thimble, and hexane was used as the solvent. Then, the thimble was placed in the apparatus and run for 7 hours. After extraction, the solvent was evaporated, and the extracted oil was dried to remove residual hexane. The oil content was calculated via the following formula: Statistical analysis Analysis of variance was performed via Fisher's ANOVA, and Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) test at a probability of 5% was used to compare the differences among treatment means. R Studio 4.6.1 (R Studio, Boston, MA, USA) was used to perform principal component analysis (PCA) and create a correlation matrix. Additionally, Microsoft Excel 365 was used for graphical illustrations. Results Plant height (cm) The ANOVA results of the two-year combined study revealed that, compared with D 1 , planting density had a significant effect on plant height, resulting in 7% taller plants at D 0 (Fig. 2 ). Canopy management also had a significant effect on plant height, with the maximum plant height observed in the control plot (111.31 cm). The lowest percentage was 33% under chemical topping plus pruning, and the lowest percentage was 16% under pruning alone compared with the control. However, the interaction effect between planting density and canopy management treatment was not significant (Table 2 ). With increasing canopy manipulation intensity, the height generally decreased. Among all the treatments, only the pruning treatment resulted in relatively more plants showing the least effect on the vertical growth of cotton. Table 2 F values of various parameters of cotton crops subjected to various canopy management techniques and grown at two densities. Parameters Planting density Canopy management technique Planting density × Canopy management technique Plant height (cm) 5.8* 20.3** 1.15ns Number of monopodial branches 17.05** 1093.32** 3.71* Number of sympodial branches 24.8** 75.47** 1.72ns Bolls per plant 22.36** 36.20** 2.43ns Seed index (g) 43.63** 0.98ns 0.14ns Seed cotton yield (kg ha − 1 ) 95.32** 48.03** 4.11** Seed oil contents (%) 8.31** 28.36** 0.21ns Short fiber index (%) 7.92* 69.48** 0.25ns Breaking elongation (%) 9.25** 14.20** 0.21ns Fiber strength (g/tex) 4.74* 4.85** 0.08ns Fiber length (mm) 11.37** 2.12ns 0.06ns Uniformity index (%), 12.82** 20.75** 0.6ns Micornaire 15.27** 4.74** 0.23ns *: significant, **: highly significant, ns: non-significant Monopodial branches per plant The results from both years of study revealed that both treatment and their interaction had a significant effect on the number of monopodial branches per cotton plant (Fig. 2 ). Manual topping has the maximum number of branches under the D 1 planting density, followed by chemical topping, with 2.97 branches per plant. Control has a minimum number of branches, whereas pruning and pruning combined with chemical and manual topping have 0 branches due to deliberate removal as a part of treatment. The maximum number of branches was observed at the D 1 planting density compared with D 0 . Moreover, the significant interaction shows that monopodial branches were dependent on the density treatment, with a pronounced effect at higher planting densities (Table 2 ). Sympodial branches per plant The results revealed that canopy management treatment and planting density had a significant effect on the number of sympodial branches, whereas the interaction remained nonsignificant (Table 2 ). At D 1, there was a 6% increase in sympodial branches compared with D 0 . In the canopy management treatment, the greatest increase of 38% was observed in the pruning plus chemical topping treatment, and the minimum increase of 4% was observed in the pruning alone treatment compared with the control (Fig. 2 ). A notable increase in sympodial branches was recorded under all canopy management treatments, with the topping plus pruning treatment having a more pronounced effect than pruning alone. Bolls per plant The results indicated that canopy management treatment and planting density had a significant effect on the number of bolls, whereas their interaction remained nonsignificant (Table 2 ). The number of bolls increased by up to 15% at D 1 compared with that at the low planting density D 0 . For the canopy management treatment, the maximum number of bolls was observed in the chemical topping plus pruning treatment, corresponding to a 39% increase relative to the control. This was followed by manual topping plus pruning, which increased the boll number by 28%, and the lowest increase, up to 2%, was observed in the manual topping treatment compared with the control (Fig. 2 ). Compared with those in the control treatment, the boll numbers in the topping pruning treatment consistently increased, either alone or in combination. The nonsignificant interaction confirms that uniform treatment responses occurred across both planting densities. Seed cotton yield (kg ha − 2 ) The analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction effect of canopy management and planting density on seed cotton yield (Fig. 2 ). In terms of the canopy management technique, chemical topping plus pruning resulted in yields that were 94% and 89% greater than those of the control at the D 0 and D 1 planting densities, respectively. This was followed by manual topping plus pruning, which increased D 0 by 80% and D 1 by 46% during chemical topping. At a lower planting density D 0 , a greater seed cotton yield was observed. The significant interaction shows that the effect of the canopy management treatment on yield was dependent on density, with a lower planting density increasing yield (Table 2 ). Seed index (g) The results indicated that only planting density had a significant effect on the seed index, whereas canopy management treatment and their interaction had nonsignificant effects (Fig. 2 ). The D 1 planting density had a greater seed index of 7.95 g than did D 0, which was 7.33 g, corresponding to an 8.45% increase under denser planting density. The results indicated that there was no consistent trend in the effects of canopy management practices on the seed index, as the effects were not significant (Table 2 ). Seed oil content (%) Studies have shown that plant density and canopy management treatments have highly significant effects on the oil content during both years of study, whereas the interaction effect remains statistically non-significant (Table 2 ). Compared with D 0 , D 1 resulted in a 3% greater oil content. Tukey's HSD test (P < 0.05) revealed that a homogeneous mixture had a pronounced effect on the oil content. In terms of canopy management techniques, a significant difference was observed among the treatments with the highest oil content recorded during pruning, with a 6% increase in oil content compared with that of the control (Fig. 3). On the other hand, the lowest oil content was recorded for chemical topping plus pruning, with a reduction of 15%, followed by chemical topping alone, reflecting an 8% decrease compared with that of the control. The results confirmed the superiority of pruning alone in enhancing the oil content, whereas chemical topping plus pruning reduced the oil content. Cotton quality parameters Short fiber index (SFI %) The analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of planting density and canopy management technique on the short-fiber index, whereas the interaction remained nonsignificant (Table 2 ). Among the canopy management techniques, the control plot had a high SFI value. In contrast, all canopy management techniques had a negative influence on the short-fiber index, which was reduced by 22% by manual topping plus pruning and 8% by chemical topping plus pruning compared with the control (Fig. 3). When the planting density D 1 was reduced to D 0 , the short-fiber index decreased from 8.22% to 8.02%, with a slight reduction of 2%. Breaking elongation (%) The results of the ANOVA revealed that the canopy management technique and planting density had a significant effect on the percentage of fiber elongation, whereas their interaction had a nonsignificant effect (Table 2 ). For the canopy management technique, the greatest fiber elongation was recorded under the chemical topping plus pruning treatment, followed closely by the manual topping plus pruning treatment and the manual topping treatment, with rates of 10%, 9% and 8%, respectively (Fig. 3). In contrast, the lowest elongation was recorded in the control treatment. Pruning and chemical topping alone resulted in intermediate increases of 3% and 6%, respectively. The findings revealed that, compared with the control and single treatments, the combination of pruning with chemical and manual topping significantly increased fiber elongation, with further improvement, which was supported by the lower planting density D 1 . Fiber strength (g/tex) A statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of the canopy management technique and planting density on fiber strength (Table 2 ). A lower fiber strength was detected in the control plot, whereas pruning alone and chemical topping with pruning slightly improved the fiber strength to less than 1%. Conversely, the maximum strength was observed under manual topping plus punning, followed by manual topping alone and chemical topping, representing 5%, 4% and 2% improvements over the control (Fig. 3). The planting density also had a significant effect on the D 1 plating density, with 1.6% more fibers than D 0 . Overall strength improved under low planting density in manual topping plus pruning. Fiber length (mm) ANOVA revealed that planting density significantly affected only the mean length of cotton fibers, while no effect of canopy management or its interaction was recorded (Fig. 3). Tukey's HSD test (P < 0.05) revealed that the two densities had individual groups, which confirmed a significant difference between them. Compared with D 0 , D 1 improved the fiber length by up to 4% (Table 2 ). Uniformity index (%) The ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the planting density and canopy management technique on fiber uniformity, whereas the interaction effect was nonsignificant (Table 2 ). Across canopy management techniques, manual topping plus pruning resulted in a 3.19% improvement, followed by chemical topping plus pruning, with a 3.10% improvement over the control. A modest improvement of 0.87% was shown by manual topping. Compared with the control, the low planting density slightly improved the uniformity index, with a 0.79% increase. These results indicated that combining manual or chemical topping with pruning improved the uniformity index, which was further enhanced by a low planting density D 1 (Fig. 3). Micronaire The factors of both planting density and canopy management technique had a significant impact, and their interaction remained nonsignificant (Table 2 ). Among the canopy management techniques, the highest micronaire value was recorded for manual topping plus pruning, with a 1.70% increase over that of the control. Treatments such as pruning alone and chemical topping plus pruning resulted in no improvement. Compared with D 0 , planting density also significantly affected the MIC value, reflecting a 3% increase at D 1 (Fig. 3). Correlation matrix and principal component analysis A correlation matrix was constructed to determine the relationships between the cotton agronomic and quality parameters (Fig. 4 ). The findings from the analysis revealed that plant height has a strong positive correlation with sympodial branches and elongation but a negative relationship with the uniformity index and elongation. Additionally, the number of sympodial branches was positively correlated with yield, the seed index and the number of bolls per plant, indicating its importance in increasing yield. Among the quality parameters, the short fiber index was strongly negatively correlated with elongation. The uniformity index has a negative correlation with the short-fiber index, indicating that a relatively high short-fiber content has an adverse effect on fiber uniformity. The analysis revealed a complex interrelationship among fiber and agronomic parameters by emphasizing the critical role of sympodial branches and strength and elongation from quality traits in ensuring overall cotton productivity under the studied agronomic treatments. To evaluate the relationships between fiber traits and agronomic quality parameters, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed (Fig. 4 ). From the biplot diagram, the performance was measured across PC1-41.2% and PC2-20.2%, resulting in a total variation of 61.4%. The correlation circle comprised four major groups in which sympodial branches (Sym), elongation (Elg) and yield were closely related in the first group. Moreover, monopodial branches (Mono) were in contrasting quadrants, forming an adversarial relationship with fiber traits such as elongation (Elg) and strength (Str). However, with respect to PC2 plant height, the seed index (SI) and oil content had lower contributions, limiting their role in the overall plot. These findings highlight elongation, yield and sympodial branches as strong traits for increasing cotton efficiency. Discussion Planting density is an important parameter for estimating yield. This study revealed that there was a significant difference in yield among different plant populations. At D 0 , there were 87489 plants per hectare, and at D 1 , there were 58326 plants per hectare. With increasing space, the plant population decreased. The highest yield was obtained at D 0 compared with D 1 . In terms of canopy management, chemical topping with pruning increased the number of sympodial branches at high plant density, but the yield decreased at high plant density. In high-density cotton planting systems, plants face intense canopy competition for resources such as water, light and nutrients, which results in poor boll retention and often shading. MC functions as a gibberellin inhibitor that suppresses leaf expansion, stem growth and internode elongation, leading to a compact plant structure with better source‒sink relationships and efficient light interception [ 30 , 31 ]. It relocates assimilates toward reproductive parts, particularly in high-density and late-sown cotton, where the growing duration is already short. This ensures resource use efficiency to avoid the adverse effects of canopy shading on reproductive growth [ 32 ]. A previous study noted that MCs increased photo assimilation movement toward reproductive organs and restricted vegetative overgrowth to maximize reproductive biomass and lint yield during a short growing period [ 33 ]. It also improved the canopy microclimate and increased boll opening, resulting in higher yields under dense planting conditions. This study was the first to explore the combined results of removing monopodial branches and apical dominance. Among all the treatments, removing the apical dominance of cotton via chemical plus pruning had the highest yield. The second top-performing treatment was pruning combined with manual topping, which increased the branch count and yield after the first treatment. The application of plant growth regulators (PGRs) in chemical topping has an important role in regulating assimilate portioning and physiological processes [ 34 ]. PGRs such as flumetralin and mepiquat chloride change the canopy structure of plants by shortening internodes, reducing plant height and forming a compact structure that increases light distribution, leading to improved boll setting, increased yields and increased leaf area duration in the upper canopy [ 35 , 36 ]. Mepiquat chloride inhibits gibberellin activity by downregulating the expression of GhEXP and GhXTH2 , which are responsible for vegetative growth, rather than being transferred to reproductive parts, hence increasing boll retention and yield [18;37]. The physiological cycles of plants, such as the chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and yield, are affected by pruning and topping at specific growth stages, and the optimal spacing and timing further increase these effects [ 38 ]. Moreover, canopy management also impacts the activity of sucrose metabolic enzymes, which are crucial to yield and source sink relationships [ 39 ]. A study reported by Alfaqeih et al. [ 40 ] revealed that the number of monopodial branches was greater at high planting densities than at low densities and that there was a decrease in the number of monopodial branches. This is due to natural competition between plants for nutrients and light. Reddy et al. [ 41 ] revealed that among higher planting densities (55,555 plants hm − 2 ), moderate planting densities (37037 plants hm − 2 ) and lower planting densities (18518 plants hm − 2 ), moderate planting densities produced more sympodial branches than did lower densities. The same results were reported by Shekar et al. [ 42 ], who reported that a high planting density of chloride increased sympodial branches and yield. When chemical topping was compared with the control and manual topping, both methods yielded lower yields. The results of this study prove that canopy management significantly impacts yield but deteriorates fiber quality in late-sown cotton. When the quality of early- and late-sown cotton is compared, late-sown cotton has lower fiber and yarn quality [ 43 ]. Our study aligns with that of Li et al. [ 44 ], who reported that, compared with manual topping, chemical topping reduces plant height by inhibiting apical dominance and causing an increase in yield. Yield is determined by total biomass accumulation in plant organs and how much assimilates move toward reproductive tissue [ 24 ]. Compared with manual or no topping, a medium concentration of chemical topping increased yield by 24.1 to 29.2% and plant architecture, indicating the best balance of yield and plant structure for machine-picked cotton [ 16 ]. These authors reported that when mepiquat chloride was used, the yield increased to 19–29% compared with that in the control treatment. In comparison, Tung et al. [ 33 ] reported the opposite result, indicating that the application of MC caused a 6–29% reduction in yield compared with that of the control because of less biomass accumulation in reproductive organs. Zhang et al. [ 45 ] reported that chemical topping had no effect on yield. Chemical topping enhances light penetration in the cotton canopy, which results in the development of bolls that help to maintain yield and quality [ 46 ]. Where different parameters contribute to economic yield, the canopy microclimate is also considered an important parameter. The microenvironment under the canopy, such as relative humidity and temperature, greatly influences crop growth and development. This study revealed that, with increasing planting density, the photosynthesis rate also increased during the boll-setting period. After this, the photosynthetic activity remained relatively high, and the medium planting density decreased under excessively dense conditions. This pattern was closely related to the development of the leaf area index, as increasing density reduced light interception within the canopy structure, thus affecting photosynthesis [ 47 ]. Compared with lower-density plants, higher-density plants have a poorer light distribution within the canopy structure and form canopies earlier [ 48 ]. The increase in leaf temperature but decrease in humidity level at 15 cm row spacing compared with conventional row spacing suggest that this spacing is the best row spacing for photosynthesis activity [ 49 ]. This enhanced the light interception humidity and optimized the temperature, making it best for increasing yield in certain row spacing systems. The level of increase was due to improved canopy structure for better light penetration. Among all canopy management treatments, the topping treatment was found to be the best at improving cotton quality compared with chemical topping, which is consistent with the findings of Yaşar et al. [ 50 ], who reported that topping after 100 days improved fiber length but had no significant effect on yield, SFI, elongation or fiber fineness. Dong et al. [ 51 ] reported that removing basal branches during the squaring stage increased plant height, plant biomass fiber strength and micronaire. A study by Wu et al. [ 16 ] revealed that the cotton structure was improved by regulating growth, increasing boll counts and increasing fiber strength. This treatment combines pruning with chemical topping to increase resource allocation to fruiting branches and increase yield and bolls [ 7 ]. [ 52 ] reported that a relatively high concentration of chemicals reduces the fiber strength and elongation rate of cotton, which ultimately reduces the overall fiber quality. This yield improvement mechanism lies in resource allocation by removing the top of cotton growth toward the productive part, which improves yield efficiency and boll production by reducing boll abscission [ 53 ]. More controlled growth was observed in manual pruning, as selective removal enables resources to be focused on a desired characteristic without adversely affecting growth, such as chemical topping, hence increasing cotton quality parameters [ 16 ]. Although genetic factors are mainly responsible for controlling oil content and fiber traits, they are also influenced by canopy structure and resource distribution when plants are pruned. Jalilian et al. [ 54 ] reported that at higher plant density, the lint yield is increased, but the oil content and some quality parameters are reduced compared with those at low planting density. This study suggests that canopy management and plant density can indirectly affect the oil content and fiber quality by altering the microenvironment within the canopy. Hence, this study revealed why pruning alone results in superior fiber quality. Mepiquat chloride is a widely used chemical agent in cotton to improve plant yield characteristics. Given that its short-term benefits are well known, its long-term effects are also a concern. Li et al. [ 55 ] reported that the degradation period for MC in cotton plants ranges between 2 and 4 days, which ensures safety from bioaccumulation in the food chain, but it ranges from 7–10 days in soil. However, when applied according to recommendations, the residual level remains below the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) within 2–3 weeks after final application. The residual material after the last spraying was below the LOD (0.01 mg kg − 1 ) for 21 days. The European Food Safety Authority assessed the normal persistence of MCs in soil with a potential effect on soil enzymatic function and reported no risk of soil metabolites or groundwater contamination [ 56 ]. A previous study [ 57 ] demonstrated that MC is nontoxic to marine fish and estuarine and freshwater resources but was associated with concerns at high dosages in small mammals. The application of pruning with chemical topping significantly improved yield, but no studies have reported this. Early studies investigated various agronomic practices that maximize cotton yield, but this research highlights how these practices can optimize yield by enhancing light penetration and promoting a balanced reproductive structure, suggesting a novel approach for improving cotton yield. Although the results of the present study are promising, the present study was conducted at a single location for two years, with specific environmental conditions, and thus has limitations. Future studies should be conducted in more geographical regions to validate the results of these experiments. Conclusions This study evaluated the effects of different planting densities and canopy management methods on the yield and fiber quality of late-sown cotton crops. The results revealed significant effects of both treatments on agronomic and quality parameters. Pruning, when combined with manual and chemical topping, has improved yield and fiber quality at high planting densities. The results indicate that plant height was not affected by the combination of pruning and chemical topping. This interaction between canopy management and planting density plays a crucial role in increasing cotton yield. All the parameters were strongly influenced by chemical topping, and the pruning oil content was increased in the pruning treatment only. Future research should focus on calibrating best practices for balancing cotton quality and yield, specifically in late-sown cotton. Such studies should be helpful in mitigating the impact of climate change on cotton production and food and fiber security in regions relying on cotton‒wheat cropping systems. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable Consent for publication: Not applicable Availability of data and material: The data are available from the corresponding author and can be furnished upon request. Competing interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Funding: This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, grant number XXX. Authors' contributions: Conceptualization, Fahd Rasul; methodology, investigation, Fahd Rasul, Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat; data curation, Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat; writing—original draft preparation, Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat, Fahd Rasul; writing—review and editing, Fahd Rasul, Muhammad Zia Ul Haq, Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat, Muhammad Talha Aslam, Muhammad N. Sattar, Sallah A. Al Hashedi, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Munir. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, grant number XXX. References Ali MA, Farooq J, Batool A, et al. Cotton production in Pakistan. Cotton Production. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. pp. 249–76. Rana AW, Ejaz A, Shikoh SH. Cotton crop: A situational analysis of Pakistan. Int Food Policy Res Inst. 2020. FAO. 2023. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 20240-2033-Chap. 10 Cotton Available at: https://www.fao.org/markets-and-trade/commodities/cotton/en/ (Accessed on October 4, 2024.). Bradley D, Ratcliffe O, Vincent C, et al. Inflorescence commitment and architecture in Arabidopsis. Science. 1997;275:80–3. Tian Z, Wang X, Lee R, et al. Artificial selection for determinate growth habit in soybean. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:8563–8. Bai Z, Mao S, Han Y, et al. Study on light interception and biomass production of different cotton cultivars. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0156335. Obasi MO, Msaakpa TS. Influence of topping, side branch pruning and hill spacing on growth and development of cotton ( Gossypium barbadense L.) in the Southern Guinea Savanna location of Nigeria. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop. 2005;106:155–65. Saleem MF, Shahid M, Shakoor A, et al. Removal of early fruit branches triggered regulations in senescence, boll attributes and yield of Bt cotton genotypes. Ann Appl Biol. 2018;172:224–35. Wang G, Gutierrez M, Asiimwe RK, et al. Response of upland cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum ) to fruiting branch removal. J Agron Crop Sci. 2011;197:155–63. Dong HZ, Li WJ, Li ZH, et al. Review on utilization of vegetative branches of cotton plants. Cotton Sci. 2003;15:313–7. Dai J, Dong H. Intensive cotton farming technologies in China: Achievements, challenges and countermeasures. Field Crops Res. 2014;155:99–110. Li T, Zhang Y, Dai J, et al. High plant density inhibits vegetative branching in cotton by altering hormone contents and photosynthetic production. Field Crops Res. 2019;230:121–31. Zhang J, Han Y, Li Y, et al. Inhibition of apical dominance affects boll spatial distribution, yield and fiber quality of field-grown cotton. Ind Crops Prod. 2021;173:114098. Llandres AL, Almohamad R, Brévault T, et al. Plant training for induced defense against insect pests: a promising tool for integrated pest management in cotton. Pest Manag Sci. 2018;74:2004–12. Renou A, Téréta I, Togola M. Manual topping decreases bollworm infestations in cotton cultivation in Mali. Crop Prot. 2011;30:1370–5. Wu Y, Tang J, Tian J, et al. Different concentrations of chemical topping agents affect cotton yield and quality by regulating plant architecture. Agronomy. 2023;13:1741. Xu Y, Han C, Zhang J, et al. Innovative Designs for Cotton Bionic Topping Manipulator. Agriculture. 2024;14:1469. Wang C, An C, Li N, et al. Long-lasting growth regulation on cotton using mepiquat chloride adsorbed layered double hydroxide. Adv Agrochem. 2024;3:57–63. Wilson LJ, Lei TT, Sadras VO, et al. Undamaged cotton plants yield more if their neighbour is damaged: implications for pest management. Bull Entomol Res. 2009;99:467–78. Reddy VR, Trent A, Acock B. Mepiquat chloride and irrigation versus cotton growth and development. Agron J. 1992;84:930–3. Wang X, Hu Y, Ji C, et al. Yields, growth and water use under chemical topping in relations to row configuration and plant density in drip-irrigated cotton. J Cotton Res. 2024;7:13. Tian Y, Lioa B, Han H, et al. The efficacy of chemical topping in field-grown cotton is mediated by drip irrigation amount in irrigated agricultural area. J Cotton Res. 2022;5:16. Gwathmey CO, Clement JD. Alteration of cotton source–sink relations with plant population density and mepiquat chloride. Field Crops Res. 2010;116:101–7. Dai J, Luo Z, Li W, et al. A simplified pruning method for profitable cotton production in the Yellow River valley of China. Field Crops Res. 2014;164:22–9. Zhao W, Yan Q, Yang H, et al. Effects of mepiquat chloride on yield and main properties of cottonseed under different plant densities. J Cotton Res. 2019;2:11–20. Zhi XY, Han YC, Li YB, et al. Effects of plant density on cotton yield components and quality. J Integr Agric. 2016;15:1469–79. Qi J, Zhang Y, Dai J, et al. Late-planted short-season cotton without plastic mulching is an alternative to early-planted mulched full-season cotton. Ind Crops Prod. 2021;163:113325. Chen Y, Dong H. Mechanisms and regulation of senescence and maturity performance in cotton. Field Crops Res. 2016;189:1–9. Adams C, Thapa S, Kimura E. Determination of a plant population density threshold for optimizing cotton lint yield: a synthesis. Field Crops Res. 2019;230:11–6. Rademacher W. Growth retardants: effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2000;51:501–31. Zhao D, Oosterhuis DM. Pix plus and mepiquat chloride effects on physiology, growth, and yield of field-grown cotton. J Plant Growth Regul. 2000;1:11–23. Siebert JD, Stewart AM. Influence of plant density on cotton response to mepiquat chloride application. Agron J. 2006;98:1634–9. Tung SA, Huang Y, Hafeez A, et al. Mepiquat chloride effects on cotton yield and biomass accumulation under late sowing and high density. Field Crops Res. 2018;215:59–65. Basra A. Plant Growth Regulators in Agriculture and Horticulture: Their Role and Commercial Uses. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC; 2000. Reta-Sánchez DG, Fowler JL. Canopy light environment and yield of narrow‐row cotton as affected by canopy architecture. Agron J. 2002;94:1317–23. Liang FB, Yang CX, Sui LL, et al. Flumetralin and dimethyl piperidinium chloride alter light distribution in cotton canopies by optimizing the spatial configuration of leaves and bolls. J Integr Agric. 2020;19:1777–88. Tung SA, Huang Y, Hafeez A, et al. Morpho-physiological effects and molecular mode of action of mepiquat chloride application in cotton: a review. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2020;20:2073–86. Nie J, Li Z, Zhang Y. Plant pruning affects photosynthesis and photoassimilate partitioning in relation to the yield formation of field-grown cotton. Ind Crops Prod. 2021;73:114087. Qin A, Aluko OO, Liu Z. Improved cotton yield: Can we achieve this goal by regulating the coordination of source and sink? Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1136636. Alfaqeih F, Ali A, Baswaid A. Effect of plant density on growth and yield of cotton. Univ Aden J Nat Appl Sci. 2002;6:279–85. Reddy KV, Akula B, Reddy KI, et al. Influence of Plant Density vis-à-vis Architecture on Growth Parameters Bt Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L). Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(15):220–33. Shekar K, Ramana MV, Kumari SR. Response of hybrid cotton to chloro mepiquat chloride and detopping under high density planting. J Cotton Res Dev. 2015;29(1):84–6. Cevheri CI. The effect of rain on fiber and yarn quality of cotton ( G. hirsutum L.) varieties in two different growing seasons. J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(9):3558–70. Li F, Wang X, Wang XR, et al. Cotton chemical topping with mepiquat chloride application in the north of Yellow River valley of China. Sci Agric Sin. 2016;49:2497–510. Zhang LJ, Chen JY, Qin YK, et al. Effects of chemical capping agent on direct cotton after rape. Hubei Agri Sci. 2021;60(8):36. Yang CX, Zhang WF, Xu SZ, et al. Effects of spraying chemical topping agents on canopy structure and canopy photosynthetic production in cotton. Sci Agric Sin. 2016;49(9):1672–84. Zhang WF, Wang ZL, Yu SL, et al. Effects of planting density on canopy photosynthesis, canopy structure and yield formation of high-yield cotton in Xinjiang, China. Chin J Plant Ecol. 2004;28(2):164–71. Brodrick R, Bange MP, Milroy SP, et al. Physiological determinants of high yielding ultra-narrow row cotton: Canopy development and radiation use efficiency. Field Crops Res. 2013;148:86–94. Yang WP, Guo TC, Liu SB, et al. Effects of row spacing in winter wheat on canopy structure and microclimate in later growth stage. Chin J Plant Ecol. 2008;32(2):485. Yaşar M, Başbağ S, Ekinci R. Pamukta Farklı Zamanlarda Kesilerek Uzaklaştırılan Tepe Sürgünü Uygulamasının Lif Verimi ve Kalitesi Üzerine Etkisi. J Inst Sci Technol. 2017;7(2):327–33. Dong HZ, Wei TA, Li WJ, et al. Yield, leaf senescence, and Cry1Ac expression in response to removal of early fruiting branches in transgenic Bt cotton. Agric Sci China. 2008;7(6):692–702. Mohammed HA. Chemical Modification Treatments on Extra-Long Egyptian Cotton Fiber. Int J Adv Sci Eng. 2021;8(1). Kittock DL, Fry KE. Effects of topping pima cotton on lint yield and boll retention. Agron J. 1997;69(1):65–7. Jalilian S, Madani H, Vafaie-Tabar M, et al. Plant density influences yield, yield components, lint quality and seed oil content of cotton genotypes. OCL. 2023;30:12. Li WX, Chen M, Chen WT, et al. Determination of mepiquat chloride in cotton crops and soil and its dissipation rates. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2012;85:137–43. Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, et al. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride). Efsa J. 2024;22(7):e8860. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). R.E.D. Facts: Mepiquat Chloride (EPA-738-F-96-019). Washington (DC): US EPA; 1997. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Graphicalabstract.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 19 Jan, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Plant Biology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 17 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 12 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 09 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Dec, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 03 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 25 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Nov, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 31 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 31 Oct, 2025 Editor invited by journal 27 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 23 Oct, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 23 Oct, 2025 First submitted to journal 16 Oct, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7882157","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":542388735,"identity":"723fce4c-3432-4b04-b3e2-f7c534493b82","order_by":0,"name":"Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Agriculture Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"Abu Bakar","lastName":"Hayat","suffix":""},{"id":542388736,"identity":"7dff38d0-77ce-47db-a7d2-20fb88aff7f4","order_by":1,"name":"Fahd Rasul","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Agriculture Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fahd","middleName":"","lastName":"Rasul","suffix":""},{"id":542388737,"identity":"a5aa2db2-c72e-4c30-bd4f-708520e52d83","order_by":2,"name":"Muhammad Zia Ul Haq","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Agriculture Faisalabad","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"Zia Ul","lastName":"Haq","suffix":""},{"id":542388738,"identity":"813f082c-21b7-4852-8786-74c37338d702","order_by":3,"name":"Muhammad Talha Aslam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Jiangxi Agricultural University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"Talha","lastName":"Aslam","suffix":""},{"id":542388739,"identity":"df064d46-4ad8-4461-b9be-f957ba5719bc","order_by":4,"name":"Muhammad N. Sattar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Faisal University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"N.","lastName":"Sattar","suffix":""},{"id":542388740,"identity":"f73ba58f-9f87-42e8-aedf-6c984f0968e6","order_by":5,"name":"Sallah A. Al Hashedi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Faisal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sallah","middleName":"A. Al","lastName":"Hashedi","suffix":""},{"id":542388741,"identity":"98fccee8-9a3d-4dd0-9fd0-d900cae2913c","order_by":6,"name":"Abdul Ghafoor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Faisal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abdul","middleName":"","lastName":"Ghafoor","suffix":""},{"id":542388742,"identity":"6af84a49-d14f-4bd3-88a2-7bdf21ca8837","order_by":7,"name":"Muhammad Munir","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"King Faisal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Muhammad","middleName":"","lastName":"Munir","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-17 03:23:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882157/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882157/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-026-08163-z","type":"published","date":"2026-01-19T15:57:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95657133,"identity":"a7742b67-0251-40e5-b92f-d53a277b969a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:08","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":2784161,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Hayatetal.BMCPlantBiology.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/e60ed32a2b374456e3768da9.docx"},{"id":95657821,"identity":"108089a2-6b87-4b7c-afdb-e53bf645a639","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:22:03","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":9012,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7634185ace0744659620a28fae443a01.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/5bea3eff67d79a1b1b5ab44b.json"},{"id":95629204,"identity":"f424c364-3cd3-49b3-a4f9-af0fc9ef31c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":130549,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7634185ace0744659620a28fae443a011enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/eb98438913178261887bed54.xml"},{"id":95629211,"identity":"260394ad-f46a-40f5-a71a-a4341f672702","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"eps","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":114790,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage1.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/3b8a80fc4809d70f93f0ff4a.eps"},{"id":95629206,"identity":"1d0df1ac-af0a-4cb0-87b0-5b2ad8141589","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"eps","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":111057,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage10.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/e2d65a01766309d5b1b8581b.eps"},{"id":95657111,"identity":"7d5ed2a6-412c-4d2f-8504-a5e723f480f5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:06","extension":"eps","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":88155,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage11.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/4ba33fa2a7661a13f8d15091.eps"},{"id":95657460,"identity":"a39f2276-01ef-429b-ae44-02cb9e8e1f32","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:54","extension":"eps","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":87332,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage2.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/919c79c8633de33b09aa1d52.eps"},{"id":95629210,"identity":"37a07f46-ebd0-4dc0-b1c0-537529864950","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"eps","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":113403,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage3.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/d3e0e209bc0eca9b36b0c034.eps"},{"id":95629208,"identity":"8b9c6edb-e1ff-4127-bd1b-699e7c85956a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"eps","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":88712,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage4.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/37f241e20b379a8d88c96c38.eps"},{"id":95657112,"identity":"cd04802a-4a4d-4d04-9579-217c3b52a5e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:06","extension":"eps","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":107074,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage5.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/d33b50c58da96544910fa808.eps"},{"id":95656921,"identity":"906861d7-79a7-435f-b3fb-f4bbb9c42ed9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:44","extension":"eps","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":97005,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage6.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/a6a74b6aba97f5571e5d0afe.eps"},{"id":95657771,"identity":"c5961200-bcf0-47ec-8d04-5bef4e437dee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:21:54","extension":"eps","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":108279,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage7.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/f7371082482838a4bc025936.eps"},{"id":95657027,"identity":"99fc8fa2-f5e9-4cf4-81d8-76b76944e19d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:56","extension":"eps","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93836,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage8.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/aa4f42a4534a8b41c9f76c88.eps"},{"id":95629221,"identity":"ce9ce85b-b3a0-464d-96e2-b32f8ceae688","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"eps","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":94947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"drawingimage9.eps","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/28b0599b63140cdd19cb19c9.eps"},{"id":95629216,"identity":"b49f6526-7ecb-4c83-a7b3-8f002db75970","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"jpeg","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1010652,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/98d54abbe5f380a53152b775.jpeg"},{"id":95657055,"identity":"33c056cd-5d4a-48b9-9deb-2b1fd3799e3d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:03","extension":"jpeg","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":404310,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/222f59f7281f880ec3728522.jpeg"},{"id":95629227,"identity":"a3884f6f-a6e0-4ea6-9288-67febe528c42","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"jpeg","order_by":17,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":602306,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/79b68f7ea6de8708b6e35cb4.jpeg"},{"id":95629218,"identity":"37ab9c78-3f37-447e-947f-2f6a099c6e2c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"jpeg","order_by":18,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":382980,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/f1cd2bf12f2d626beb59dc8d.jpeg"},{"id":95656784,"identity":"ca7e1e38-8826-4743-a371-ff0db71175d5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:32","extension":"png","order_by":19,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":113413,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/0c17f31ab7eb276835a1e35c.png"},{"id":95629226,"identity":"802fc5af-d6be-47ec-b9f8-f9aa05150144","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"png","order_by":20,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":58253,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/241d3a033f02b09a41b19cc3.png"},{"id":95657127,"identity":"f0392220-bd55-4705-a6db-bcfc1979340a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:20:08","extension":"png","order_by":21,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93034,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/de1841f87cc5782114b09736.png"},{"id":95656721,"identity":"15a0c6f4-27b7-4d45-ade0-ef399d5a0a41","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:26","extension":"png","order_by":22,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":80933,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/12745225f7213ee9392108bf.png"},{"id":95629228,"identity":"45988f39-4b6c-4e98-b347-ab9c97001d51","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:40","extension":"xml","order_by":23,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":129168,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7634185ace0744659620a28fae443a011structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/2e0cb0521f38ce0c0d69b5b9.xml"},{"id":95629223,"identity":"d75b31b2-6847-4c32-ac5c-de797e75fde0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"html","order_by":24,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":139594,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/b7ffc1aa818ac67e272a9c45.html"},{"id":95629202,"identity":"5307f436-777b-402a-b43b-6621fdda64f2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":46512,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWeather characteristics of the experimental site during the two growing seasons.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/3c4f56d7b5a08a46b5e499e5.png"},{"id":95657551,"identity":"b98096ab-61d3-4b54-82f9-0785e671a72a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:21:13","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":69000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInfluence of various canopy management techniques on plant height (cm), number of monopodial branches, number of sympodial branches, bolls per plant, seed cotton yield (kg ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e), and the seed index of cotton grown at two planting densities (D0: 87489 plants ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and D1: 58326 plants ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e). The data are the means of 2 years (2023 and 2024). Similar letters indicate statistically insignificant (P≥0.05) differences among treatments, whereas bars above the mean represent the standard error of three replications.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/908ac3402fcaf57156e4b189.png"},{"id":95657024,"identity":"74b36895-2bc6-4bc9-9e10-a6d2f55f179c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 16:19:56","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":95381,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInfluence of various canopy management techniques on seed oil contents (%), short fiber index (%), breaking elongation (%), fiber strength (g/tex), fiber length (mm), uniformity index (%), and micornaire of cotton grown under two planting densities (D0: 87489 plants ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e and D1: 58326 plants ha\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e). Data are mean of 2 years (2023 and 2024). Similar alphabets showing statistically insignificant (P≥0.05) difference among treatments while bars above mean represents standard error of three replications.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/efcd997d40ed96338eb15f57.png"},{"id":95629201,"identity":"88b02ef1-3f5e-4d7c-8ea4-4161f209a08e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":124170,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelation matrix and principal component analysis indicating the relationships among the different parameters under study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeight: Plant height, Mono: Monopodial branches, Sym: Sympodial branches, Boll: Bolls per plant, SI: Seed index, Yield: Yield kg per hectare, Oil: oil content, SFI: short fiber index, Elg: Fiber elongation (%), Str: Fiber strength (g/tex), Len: Upper Half Mean Length (mm), UI: Fiber uniformity index (%), Mic: Micronaire.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/ff40bfe1844130e14d70ae19.png"},{"id":101151645,"identity":"4c6db968-e8c7-4530-a310-4c510b703d6a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-26 16:00:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1180042,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/1405d8e7-f35c-4324-9541-f827f0d49430.pdf"},{"id":95629199,"identity":"bfed01dc-820b-4e08-804a-3514bdf3fbf2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-11 11:10:39","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":1024927,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Graphicalabstract.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7882157/v1/7b9f5d499cb468b6ac421998.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Optimal combination of canopy management and planting density for yield enhancement in late-sown cotton","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eCotton (\u003cem\u003eGossypium hirsutum\u003c/em\u003e L.) is one of the most important cash crops worldwide, and it has complex basal and distal branching patterns. It is extensively produced for its natural fiber and oil [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Cotton in Pakistan faces a decline in production, especially when it is sown late due to wheat harvest conditions; hence, it has a shorter growing season, which results in late boll maturation and a reduction in yield and fiber quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Cotton production declined in 2022 due to pest infestations in Pakistan and is expected to increase from 2023-24 through the implementation of pest control measures and increasing domestic demand for cotton [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCotton is a perennial plant whose growth pattern is indeterminate, indicating the continuous growth of the apical meristem as well as reproductive development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Sympodial branches of cotton are mainly responsible for seed yield, whereas vegetative branches (VBs) give rise to sympodial branches at leaf axils, which indirectly set bolls [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. The monopodial growth of vegetative branches creates a larger plant structure, which becomes difficult to manage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Excessive vegetative branches result in reduced light reaching plants and poor ventilation, which causes an increase in rotten bolls and low-quality fibers, negatively impacting yield [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, removing these branches is a practice that many farmers use to overcome these challenges. Different studies have shown that removing VB at low planting densities does not impact cotton yield; in fact, it enhances the number of bolls on fruiting branches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] and increases yield in later growth stages [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eApical dominance makes canopy management even more complex, necessitating topping to control main stem growth and redirect resource allocation toward bolls and secondary branches after peak flowering [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Manual topping is an effective method for controlling excessive vegetative growth [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], enhancing defense against pests [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], reducing bollworm infestation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e] and increasing yield [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Although manual topping is effective, it is laborious and requires skilled workers who can manage only 0.2 hectares per day [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. There are several challenges, including potential damage to plants although the fact that this remains a common practice until a new method is not adopted [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. When any plant organ becomes injured, cotton has a strong self-regulation system, and it quickly regulates other organs, resulting in strong plasticity toward external damage [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMepiquat chloride is a widely used growth regulator in agriculture that regulates growth by altering the architecture of cotton [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Chemical topping via a growth regulator such as mepiquate chloride was found to be an alternative to manual topping, which controls the growth of the main stem, regulates the source‒sink relationship [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e], improves boll production and compacts the plant structure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the physiological mechanism of chemical topping with other pruning methods remains underexplored. The interplay between assimilate portioning and yield formation in cotton, specifically under canopy-altered structures through topping and VB removal, is critical [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. The effects of pruning on physiological processes and how they influence cotton yield and fiber quality are not completely understood. Previous research revealed that simplified pruning techniques could reduce labor input via the canopy photosynthesis rate and assimilate distribution [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTemperature has a strong influence on cotton phenological traits, but key factors that stabilize yield in late-sown cotton are not fully understood. The effect of MC varies with planting density [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. Plant density plays a significant role in cotton yield, as higher density increases lint yield and boll density, making it a promising agronomic practice for enhancing overall production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Late sowing results in increased aging of cotton leaves, which slows vegetative growth and increases boll opening [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. During later growth stages, the temperature starts to decrease, which reduces flower opening [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. A meta-analysis by Adams et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] revealed that cotton plants compete for space and nutrients at high density, decreasing boll production and resulting in lower yields.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the need for optimal canopy management combined with various planting densities in late-sown cotton under field conditions by assessing the impacts of manual topping, chemical topping, and pruning combined with chemical and manual topping on cotton bolls, yield and fiber quality. The goal was to identify a combination that is labor efficient and has the potential to increase cotton yield under late sowing conditions.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eField experimentation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA field experiment was carried out at the Agronomic Research Area at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan (31.4294\u0026deg; N and 73.0750\u0026deg; E), between 2022 and 2023. The average rainfall and temperature during the cotton growing seasons of 2022 and 2023 are shown in Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The cotton variety FH-333 was sown on June 1 during both years. To maintain the target planting density, the plants were thinned manually, leaving healthy plants and removing weak plants (26 days after sowing).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe field trials were sown in a randomized complete block design under a factorial arrangement comprising two factors (planting density and canopy management). The planting density was maintained at two levels, i.e., D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e: 87489 plants hm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e and D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: 58326 plants ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e. Canopy management has six levels, i.e., C\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e: control; C\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: pruning at 70 DAS; C\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: chemical topping; C\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: manual topping; C\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e: chemical topping\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;pruning; and C\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e: manual topping\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;pruning. Chemical topping was performed at a rate of 120 g ha⁻\u0026sup1; on the 70th day of emergence during the flowering stage to inhibit vegetative growth. The remaining treatments were applied on the same day. Crops were sown via the manual dibbling method. The seed rate was 20 kg\u0026middot;hm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2,\u003c/sup\u003e with a row-to-row distance of 75 cm and plant-to-plant distances of 15 and 22 cm for D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e and D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, respectively. Irrigation was performed at 7\u0026ndash;20-day intervals starting 7 days after sowing. The recommended doses of phosphorus, potassium and nitrogen were applied in the form of MOP, DAP and urea at rates of 75, 88 and 200 kg/ha, respectively. Half of the nitrogen was applied as a basal dose, and the remaining half was applied 30 days after sowing. The soil samples were taken from the ground after composite samples were obtained and analyzed at the Institute of Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Glyphosate (2.5 L/ha) was used as a post-emergence herbicide to keep crops weed free and to avoid weed crop competition. Insecticides and pesticides were used on the basis of the severity of pest or bollworm attacks. Acetamipirid at 300 g/ha was used for the control of white fly adults, aphids and mealy bugs during the whole growing season. Dinotefuran was used at 250 g/ha to control Jassid during the crop-growing season. Methoxyfenozide at 500 ml/ha was used for the control of armyworm. Spintoram at 125 ml/ha was used for the control of thrips and bollworms. The remaining necessary agronomic practices were maintained during the full growing season.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSoil physicochemical attributes of the experimental site during 2022 and 2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSand (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSilt (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClay (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTexture class\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esandy clay loam\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esandy clay loam\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSaturation percentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003epH\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eECe (dS m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvailable phosphorous content (mg\u0026middot;kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAvailable potassium content (mg\u0026middot;kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e186\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e185\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOrganic matter content (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal nitrogen content (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.068\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eData collection\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were collected for agronomic parameters such as plant height (cm), monopodial branches per plant, sympodial branches per plant, bolls per plant, seed cotton yield (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e), seed index (g), seed oil content (%) and cotton quality parameters such as short fiber index (SFI %), breaking elongation (%), fiber strength (g/tex), fiber length (mm), uniformity index (%) and micronaire.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAgronomic and yield parameters\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFive randomly tagged plants were selected from all 36 plots for the measurement of plant height at maturity. The plant base and tip heights were measured in cm from five different tagged plants from every plot. The average of these five plants was subsequently converted into one plant. Data were obtained via the same procedure for the second year.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBranches that carry sympodial branches are called monopodial branches. Some sympodials are indirect, and some are directly attached to the main stem. Five plants were randomly chosen and tagged. Monopodial branches were calculated from every tagged plant plot, and their means were estimated. Fruit-bearing branches are called sympodial branches. Five randomly tagged plants were selected. Sympodial branches were finally calculated from every tagged plant plot, and their means were subsequently estimated. Healthy and mature bolls from each plot were counted from five different tagged plants. The average number of bolls on one plant is subsequently determined by how many bolls there are on that plant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSeed cotton was harvested manually two times at maturity each year. Then, it was weighed after being thoroughly dried under the sun. After being weighed, the cotton seeds were ginned with a laboratory gin. The total seed yield (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e) was determined for each plot. One hundred randomly selected fuzzy seeds were weighed in grams, and the results provided a seed index.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFiber quality attributes and oil contents\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTen grams of lint was taken from every replicate after ginning. The Department of Fiber and Textile Technology, University of Agriculture Faisalabad platform was used to determine the fiber quality parameters. High-volume instrument analysis (HV1-900 Zellwegar Uster Ltd., Switzerland) was used for the determination of the physical properties of the fibers, i.e., length, strength, elongation, uniformity and micronaire. The ASTM standard (1997) procedure was adopted. The length at 2.5% span length was considered the fiber length. The 2.5% span length and 50% span length were measured via an optical system through the HVI-900 length module. The 2.5% span length was determined and interpreted in mm. The micronaire is essentially the measurement of fiber weight in \u0026micro;g per unit length of fiber. The pressure gradient around the chamber helps to evaluate the micronaire value as the air stream is transferred via a given weight of fiber contained in the chamber of a fixed volume of module 920. In this way, fiber fineness (micronaire) was determined and interpreted in \u0026micro;g/inch. The ratio of the breaking strength of a bundle of fibers to its weight is the fiber ratio. The length/strength module-920 of HVI-920 is used for measuring the fiber strength via the principle of the contrast rate of force application on the clamped fiber of the sample taken for fiber length measurements. The fiber strength was determined and interpreted in g tex\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe fiber uniformity ratio was calculated via the formula\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Equa\" class=\"Equation\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"mathdisplay\" id=\"FileID_Equa\" name=\"EquationSource\"\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHVI-920 was also used for the measurement of fiber strength.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Soxhlet method was used for oil extraction. The first 20-gram sample was finely ground and sun-dried and then placed in a cellulose thimble, and hexane was used as the solvent. Then, the thimble was placed in the apparatus and run for 7 hours. After extraction, the solvent was evaporated, and the extracted oil was dried to remove residual hexane. The oil content was calculated via the following formula:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cimg src=\"\"\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalysis of variance was performed via Fisher\u0026apos;s ANOVA, and Tukey\u0026apos;s honestly significant difference (HSD) test at a probability of 5% was used to compare the differences among treatment means. R Studio 4.6.1 (R Studio, Boston, MA, USA) was used to perform principal component analysis (PCA) and create a correlation matrix. Additionally, Microsoft Excel 365 was used for graphical illustrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePlant height (cm)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ANOVA results of the two-year combined study revealed that, compared with D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, planting density had a significant effect on plant height, resulting in 7% taller plants at D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Canopy management also had a significant effect on plant height, with the maximum plant height observed in the control plot (111.31 cm). The lowest percentage was 33% under chemical topping plus pruning, and the lowest percentage was 16% under pruning alone compared with the control. However, the interaction effect between planting density and canopy management treatment was not significant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). With increasing canopy manipulation intensity, the height generally decreased. Among all the treatments, only the pruning treatment resulted in relatively more plants showing the least effect on the vertical growth of cotton.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eF values of various parameters of cotton crops subjected to various canopy management techniques and grown at two densities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParameters\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanting density\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCanopy management technique\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlanting density \u0026times; Canopy management technique\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePlant height (cm)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5.8*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.3**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.15ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of monopodial branches\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17.05**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1093.32**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.71*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of sympodial branches\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e24.8**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.47**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1.72ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBolls per plant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e22.36**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36.20**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.43ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeed index (g)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e43.63**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.98ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.14ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeed cotton yield (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95.32**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e48.03**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.11**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeed oil contents (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8.31**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e28.36**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.21ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eShort fiber index (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7.92*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69.48**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.25ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBreaking elongation (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9.25**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e14.20**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.21ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFiber strength (g/tex)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.74*\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.85**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.08ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFiber length (mm)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11.37**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.12ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.06ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUniformity index (%),\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12.82**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e20.75**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.6ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMicornaire\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.27**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4.74**\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0.23ns\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003ctfoot\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e*: significant, **: highly significant, ns: non-significant\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tfoot\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMonopodial branches per plant\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results from both years of study revealed that both treatment and their interaction had a significant effect on the number of monopodial branches per cotton plant (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Manual topping has the maximum number of branches under the D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e planting density, followed by chemical topping, with 2.97 branches per plant. Control has a minimum number of branches, whereas pruning and pruning combined with chemical and manual topping have 0 branches due to deliberate removal as a part of treatment. The maximum number of branches was observed at the D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e planting density compared with D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e. Moreover, the significant interaction shows that monopodial branches were dependent on the density treatment, with a pronounced effect at higher planting densities (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSympodial branches per plant\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results revealed that canopy management treatment and planting density had a significant effect on the number of sympodial branches, whereas the interaction remained nonsignificant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). At D\u003csub\u003e1,\u003c/sub\u003e there was a 6% increase in sympodial branches compared with D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e. In the canopy management treatment, the greatest increase of 38% was observed in the pruning plus chemical topping treatment, and the minimum increase of 4% was observed in the pruning alone treatment compared with the control (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). A notable increase in sympodial branches was recorded under all canopy management treatments, with the topping plus pruning treatment having a more pronounced effect than pruning alone.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBolls per plant\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results indicated that canopy management treatment and planting density had a significant effect on the number of bolls, whereas their interaction remained nonsignificant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The number of bolls increased by up to 15% at D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e compared with that at the low planting density D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e. For the canopy management treatment, the maximum number of bolls was observed in the chemical topping plus pruning treatment, corresponding to a 39% increase relative to the control. This was followed by manual topping plus pruning, which increased the boll number by 28%, and the lowest increase, up to 2%, was observed in the manual topping treatment compared with the control (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Compared with those in the control treatment, the boll numbers in the topping pruning treatment consistently increased, either alone or in combination. The nonsignificant interaction confirms that uniform treatment responses occurred across both planting densities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSeed cotton yield (kg ha\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction effect of canopy management and planting density on seed cotton yield (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). In terms of the canopy management technique, chemical topping plus pruning resulted in yields that were 94% and 89% greater than those of the control at the D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e and D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e planting densities, respectively. This was followed by manual topping plus pruning, which increased D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e by 80% and D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e by 46% during chemical topping. At a lower planting density D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, a greater seed cotton yield was observed. The significant interaction shows that the effect of the canopy management treatment on yield was dependent on density, with a lower planting density increasing yield (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSeed index (g)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results indicated that only planting density had a significant effect on the seed index, whereas canopy management treatment and their interaction had nonsignificant effects (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e planting density had a greater seed index of 7.95 g than did D\u003csub\u003e0,\u003c/sub\u003e which was 7.33 g, corresponding to an 8.45% increase under denser planting density. The results indicated that there was no consistent trend in the effects of canopy management practices on the seed index, as the effects were not significant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSeed oil content (%)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudies have shown that plant density and canopy management treatments have highly significant effects on the oil content during both years of study, whereas the interaction effect remains statistically non-significant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Compared with D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e resulted in a 3% greater oil content. Tukey's HSD test (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) revealed that a homogeneous mixture had a pronounced effect on the oil content. In terms of canopy management techniques, a significant difference was observed among the treatments with the highest oil content recorded during pruning, with a 6% increase in oil content compared with that of the control (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). On the other hand, the lowest oil content was recorded for chemical topping plus pruning, with a reduction of 15%, followed by chemical topping alone, reflecting an 8% decrease compared with that of the control. The results confirmed the superiority of pruning alone in enhancing the oil content, whereas chemical topping plus pruning reduced the oil content.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCotton quality parameters\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eShort fiber index (SFI %)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of planting density and canopy management technique on the short-fiber index, whereas the interaction remained nonsignificant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Among the canopy management techniques, the control plot had a high SFI value. In contrast, all canopy management techniques had a negative influence on the short-fiber index, which was reduced by 22% by manual topping plus pruning and 8% by chemical topping plus pruning compared with the control (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). When the planting density D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e was reduced to D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, the short-fiber index decreased from 8.22% to 8.02%, with a slight reduction of 2%.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBreaking elongation (%)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the ANOVA revealed that the canopy management technique and planting density had a significant effect on the percentage of fiber elongation, whereas their interaction had a nonsignificant effect (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). For the canopy management technique, the greatest fiber elongation was recorded under the chemical topping plus pruning treatment, followed closely by the manual topping plus pruning treatment and the manual topping treatment, with rates of 10%, 9% and 8%, respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). In contrast, the lowest elongation was recorded in the control treatment. Pruning and chemical topping alone resulted in intermediate increases of 3% and 6%, respectively. The findings revealed that, compared with the control and single treatments, the combination of pruning with chemical and manual topping significantly increased fiber elongation, with further improvement, which was supported by the lower planting density D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFiber strength (g/tex)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA statistical analysis revealed a significant effect of the canopy management technique and planting density on fiber strength (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). A lower fiber strength was detected in the control plot, whereas pruning alone and chemical topping with pruning slightly improved the fiber strength to less than 1%. Conversely, the maximum strength was observed under manual topping plus punning, followed by manual topping alone and chemical topping, representing 5%, 4% and 2% improvements over the control (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). The planting density also had a significant effect on the D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e plating density, with 1.6% more fibers than D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e. Overall strength improved under low planting density in manual topping plus pruning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFiber length (mm)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eANOVA revealed that planting density significantly affected only the mean length of cotton fibers, while no effect of canopy management or its interaction was recorded (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3). Tukey's HSD test (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) revealed that the two densities had individual groups, which confirmed a significant difference between them. Compared with D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e improved the fiber length by up to 4% (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eUniformity index (%)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the planting density and canopy management technique on fiber uniformity, whereas the interaction effect was nonsignificant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Across canopy management techniques, manual topping plus pruning resulted in a 3.19% improvement, followed by chemical topping plus pruning, with a 3.10% improvement over the control. A modest improvement of 0.87% was shown by manual topping. Compared with the control, the low planting density slightly improved the uniformity index, with a 0.79% increase. These results indicated that combining manual or chemical topping with pruning improved the uniformity index, which was further enhanced by a low planting density D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMicronaire\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe factors of both planting density and canopy management technique had a significant impact, and their interaction remained nonsignificant (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Among the canopy management techniques, the highest micronaire value was recorded for manual topping plus pruning, with a 1.70% increase over that of the control. Treatments such as pruning alone and chemical topping plus pruning resulted in no improvement. Compared with D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, planting density also significantly affected the MIC value, reflecting a 3% increase at D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e (Fig.\u0026nbsp;3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCorrelation matrix and principal component analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA correlation matrix was constructed to determine the relationships between the cotton agronomic and quality parameters (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The findings from the analysis revealed that plant height has a strong positive correlation with sympodial branches and elongation but a negative relationship with the uniformity index and elongation. Additionally, the number of sympodial branches was positively correlated with yield, the seed index and the number of bolls per plant, indicating its importance in increasing yield. Among the quality parameters, the short fiber index was strongly negatively correlated with elongation. The uniformity index has a negative correlation with the short-fiber index, indicating that a relatively high short-fiber content has an adverse effect on fiber uniformity. The analysis revealed a complex interrelationship among fiber and agronomic parameters by emphasizing the critical role of sympodial branches and strength and elongation from quality traits in ensuring overall cotton productivity under the studied agronomic treatments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the relationships between fiber traits and agronomic quality parameters, principal component analysis (PCA) was performed (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). From the biplot diagram, the performance was measured across PC1-41.2% and PC2-20.2%, resulting in a total variation of 61.4%. The correlation circle comprised four major groups in which sympodial branches (Sym), elongation (Elg) and yield were closely related in the first group. Moreover, monopodial branches (Mono) were in contrasting quadrants, forming an adversarial relationship with fiber traits such as elongation (Elg) and strength (Str). However, with respect to PC2 plant height, the seed index (SI) and oil content had lower contributions, limiting their role in the overall plot. These findings highlight elongation, yield and sympodial branches as strong traits for increasing cotton efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003ePlanting density is an important parameter for estimating yield. This study revealed that there was a significant difference in yield among different plant populations. At D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e, there were 87489 plants per hectare, and at D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e, there were 58326 plants per hectare. With increasing space, the plant population decreased. The highest yield was obtained at D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e compared with D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e. In terms of canopy management, chemical topping with pruning increased the number of sympodial branches at high plant density, but the yield decreased at high plant density. In high-density cotton planting systems, plants face intense canopy competition for resources such as water, light and nutrients, which results in poor boll retention and often shading. MC functions as a gibberellin inhibitor that suppresses leaf expansion, stem growth and internode elongation, leading to a compact plant structure with better source‒sink relationships and efficient light interception [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. It relocates assimilates toward reproductive parts, particularly in high-density and late-sown cotton, where the growing duration is already short. This ensures resource use efficiency to avoid the adverse effects of canopy shading on reproductive growth [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. A previous study noted that MCs increased photo assimilation movement toward reproductive organs and restricted vegetative overgrowth to maximize reproductive biomass and lint yield during a short growing period [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. It also improved the canopy microclimate and increased boll opening, resulting in higher yields under dense planting conditions. This study was the first to explore the combined results of removing monopodial branches and apical dominance. Among all the treatments, removing the apical dominance of cotton via chemical plus pruning had the highest yield. The second top-performing treatment was pruning combined with manual topping, which increased the branch count and yield after the first treatment. The application of plant growth regulators (PGRs) in chemical topping has an important role in regulating assimilate portioning and physiological processes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. PGRs such as flumetralin and mepiquat chloride change the canopy structure of plants by shortening internodes, reducing plant height and forming a compact structure that increases light distribution, leading to improved boll setting, increased yields and increased leaf area duration in the upper canopy [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Mepiquat chloride inhibits gibberellin activity by downregulating the expression of \u003cem\u003eGhEXP\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eGhXTH2\u003c/em\u003e, which are responsible for vegetative growth, rather than being transferred to reproductive parts, hence increasing boll retention and yield [18;37]. The physiological cycles of plants, such as the chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate and yield, are affected by pruning and topping at specific growth stages, and the optimal spacing and timing further increase these effects [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. Moreover, canopy management also impacts the activity of sucrose metabolic enzymes, which are crucial to yield and source sink relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. A study reported by Alfaqeih et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] revealed that the number of monopodial branches was greater at high planting densities than at low densities and that there was a decrease in the number of monopodial branches. This is due to natural competition between plants for nutrients and light. Reddy et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] revealed that among higher planting densities (55,555 plants hm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e), moderate planting densities (37037 plants hm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e) and lower planting densities (18518 plants hm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e), moderate planting densities produced more sympodial branches than did lower densities. The same results were reported by Shekar et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e], who reported that a high planting density of chloride increased sympodial branches and yield. When chemical topping was compared with the control and manual topping, both methods yielded lower yields.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of this study prove that canopy management significantly impacts yield but deteriorates fiber quality in late-sown cotton. When the quality of early- and late-sown cotton is compared, late-sown cotton has lower fiber and yarn quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Our study aligns with that of Li et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e], who reported that, compared with manual topping, chemical topping reduces plant height by inhibiting apical dominance and causing an increase in yield. Yield is determined by total biomass accumulation in plant organs and how much assimilates move toward reproductive tissue [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Compared with manual or no topping, a medium concentration of chemical topping increased yield by 24.1 to 29.2% and plant architecture, indicating the best balance of yield and plant structure for machine-picked cotton [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. These authors reported that when mepiquat chloride was used, the yield increased to 19\u0026ndash;29% compared with that in the control treatment. In comparison, Tung et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] reported the opposite result, indicating that the application of MC caused a 6\u0026ndash;29% reduction in yield compared with that of the control because of less biomass accumulation in reproductive organs. Zhang et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e] reported that chemical topping had no effect on yield. Chemical topping enhances light penetration in the cotton canopy, which results in the development of bolls that help to maintain yield and quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhere different parameters contribute to economic yield, the canopy microclimate is also considered an important parameter. The microenvironment under the canopy, such as relative humidity and temperature, greatly influences crop growth and development. This study revealed that, with increasing planting density, the photosynthesis rate also increased during the boll-setting period. After this, the photosynthetic activity remained relatively high, and the medium planting density decreased under excessively dense conditions. This pattern was closely related to the development of the leaf area index, as increasing density reduced light interception within the canopy structure, thus affecting photosynthesis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. Compared with lower-density plants, higher-density plants have a poorer light distribution within the canopy structure and form canopies earlier [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. The increase in leaf temperature but decrease in humidity level at 15 cm row spacing compared with conventional row spacing suggest that this spacing is the best row spacing for photosynthesis activity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. This enhanced the light interception humidity and optimized the temperature, making it best for increasing yield in certain row spacing systems. The level of increase was due to improved canopy structure for better light penetration. Among all canopy management treatments, the topping treatment was found to be the best at improving cotton quality compared with chemical topping, which is consistent with the findings of Yaşar et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e], who reported that topping after 100 days improved fiber length but had no significant effect on yield, SFI, elongation or fiber fineness. Dong et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e] reported that removing basal branches during the squaring stage increased plant height, plant biomass fiber strength and micronaire. A study by Wu et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] revealed that the cotton structure was improved by regulating growth, increasing boll counts and increasing fiber strength. This treatment combines pruning with chemical topping to increase resource allocation to fruiting branches and increase yield and bolls [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e] reported that a relatively high concentration of chemicals reduces the fiber strength and elongation rate of cotton, which ultimately reduces the overall fiber quality. This yield improvement mechanism lies in resource allocation by removing the top of cotton growth toward the productive part, which improves yield efficiency and boll production by reducing boll abscission [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. More controlled growth was observed in manual pruning, as selective removal enables resources to be focused on a desired characteristic without adversely affecting growth, such as chemical topping, hence increasing cotton quality parameters [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Although genetic factors are mainly responsible for controlling oil content and fiber traits, they are also influenced by canopy structure and resource distribution when plants are pruned. Jalilian et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e] reported that at higher plant density, the lint yield is increased, but the oil content and some quality parameters are reduced compared with those at low planting density. This study suggests that canopy management and plant density can indirectly affect the oil content and fiber quality by altering the microenvironment within the canopy. Hence, this study revealed why pruning alone results in superior fiber quality. Mepiquat chloride is a widely used chemical agent in cotton to improve plant yield characteristics. Given that its short-term benefits are well known, its long-term effects are also a concern. Li et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e] reported that the degradation period for MC in cotton plants ranges between 2 and 4 days, which ensures safety from bioaccumulation in the food chain, but it ranges from 7\u0026ndash;10 days in soil. However, when applied according to recommendations, the residual level remains below the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) within 2\u0026ndash;3 weeks after final application. The residual material after the last spraying was below the LOD (0.01 mg kg\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1\u003c/sup\u003e) for 21 days. The European Food Safety Authority assessed the normal persistence of MCs in soil with a potential effect on soil enzymatic function and reported no risk of soil metabolites or groundwater contamination [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e]. A previous study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e] demonstrated that MC is nontoxic to marine fish and estuarine and freshwater resources but was associated with concerns at high dosages in small mammals. The application of pruning with chemical topping significantly improved yield, but no studies have reported this. Early studies investigated various agronomic practices that maximize cotton yield, but this research highlights how these practices can optimize yield by enhancing light penetration and promoting a balanced reproductive structure, suggesting a novel approach for improving cotton yield. Although the results of the present study are promising, the present study was conducted at a single location for two years, with specific environmental conditions, and thus has limitations. Future studies should be conducted in more geographical regions to validate the results of these experiments.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study evaluated the effects of different planting densities and canopy management methods on the yield and fiber quality of late-sown cotton crops. The results revealed significant effects of both treatments on agronomic and quality parameters. Pruning, when combined with manual and chemical topping, has improved yield and fiber quality at high planting densities. The results indicate that plant height was not affected by the combination of pruning and chemical topping. This interaction between canopy management and planting density plays a crucial role in increasing cotton yield. All the parameters were strongly influenced by chemical topping, and the pruning oil content was increased in the pruning treatment only. Future research should focus on calibrating best practices for balancing cotton quality and yield, specifically in late-sown cotton. Such studies should be helpful in mitigating the impact of climate change on cotton production and food and fiber security in regions relying on cotton‒wheat cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and material:\u003c/strong\u003e The data are available from the corresponding author and can be furnished upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors declare no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThis research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, grant number XXX.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eConceptualization,\u0026nbsp;Fahd Rasul; methodology, investigation,\u0026nbsp;Fahd Rasul,\u0026nbsp;Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat; data curation,\u0026nbsp;Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat; writing—original draft preparation,\u0026nbsp;Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat,\u0026nbsp;Fahd Rasul; writing—review and editing,\u0026nbsp;Fahd Rasul,\u0026nbsp;Muhammad Zia Ul Haq,\u0026nbsp;Muhammad Abu Bakar Hayat, Muhammad Talha Aslam, Muhammad N. Sattar, Sallah A. Al Hashedi, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Munir. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgments:\u003c/strong\u003e This research was funded by the Deanship of Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia, grant number XXX.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAli MA, Farooq J, Batool A, et al. Cotton production in Pakistan. Cotton Production. 1st ed. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley-Blackwell; 2019. pp. 249\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRana AW, Ejaz A, Shikoh SH. Cotton crop: A situational analysis of Pakistan. Int Food Policy Res Inst. 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO. 2023. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 20240-2033-Chap. 10 Cotton Available at: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.fao.org/markets-and-trade/commodities/cotton/en/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.fao.org/markets-and-trade/commodities/cotton/en/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e (Accessed on October 4, 2024.).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBradley D, Ratcliffe O, Vincent C, et al. Inflorescence commitment and architecture in Arabidopsis. Science. 1997;275:80\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTian Z, Wang X, Lee R, et al. Artificial selection for determinate growth habit in soybean. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:8563\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBai Z, Mao S, Han Y, et al. Study on light interception and biomass production of different cotton cultivars. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0156335.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eObasi MO, Msaakpa TS. Influence of topping, side branch pruning and hill spacing on growth and development of cotton (\u003cem\u003eGossypium barbadense\u003c/em\u003e L.) in the Southern Guinea Savanna location of Nigeria. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop. 2005;106:155\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaleem MF, Shahid M, Shakoor A, et al. Removal of early fruit branches triggered regulations in senescence, boll attributes and yield of Bt cotton genotypes. Ann Appl Biol. 2018;172:224\u0026ndash;35.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang G, Gutierrez M, Asiimwe RK, et al. Response of upland cotton (\u003cem\u003eGossypium hirsutum\u003c/em\u003e) to fruiting branch removal. J Agron Crop Sci. 2011;197:155\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDong HZ, Li WJ, Li ZH, et al. Review on utilization of vegetative branches of cotton plants. Cotton Sci. 2003;15:313\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDai J, Dong H. Intensive cotton farming technologies in China: Achievements, challenges and countermeasures. Field Crops Res. 2014;155:99\u0026ndash;110.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi T, Zhang Y, Dai J, et al. High plant density inhibits vegetative branching in cotton by altering hormone contents and photosynthetic production. Field Crops Res. 2019;230:121\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang J, Han Y, Li Y, et al. Inhibition of apical dominance affects boll spatial distribution, yield and fiber quality of field-grown cotton. Ind Crops Prod. 2021;173:114098.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLlandres AL, Almohamad R, Br\u0026eacute;vault T, et al. Plant training for induced defense against insect pests: a promising tool for integrated pest management in cotton. Pest Manag Sci. 2018;74:2004\u0026ndash;12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRenou A, T\u0026eacute;r\u0026eacute;ta I, Togola M. Manual topping decreases bollworm infestations in cotton cultivation in Mali. Crop Prot. 2011;30:1370\u0026ndash;5.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWu Y, Tang J, Tian J, et al. Different concentrations of chemical topping agents affect cotton yield and quality by regulating plant architecture. Agronomy. 2023;13:1741.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu Y, Han C, Zhang J, et al. Innovative Designs for Cotton Bionic Topping Manipulator. Agriculture. 2024;14:1469.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang C, An C, Li N, et al. Long-lasting growth regulation on cotton using mepiquat chloride adsorbed layered double hydroxide. Adv Agrochem. 2024;3:57\u0026ndash;63.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilson LJ, Lei TT, Sadras VO, et al. Undamaged cotton plants yield more if their neighbour is damaged: implications for pest management. Bull Entomol Res. 2009;99:467\u0026ndash;78.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReddy VR, Trent A, Acock B. Mepiquat chloride and irrigation versus cotton growth and development. Agron J. 1992;84:930\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang X, Hu Y, Ji C, et al. Yields, growth and water use under chemical topping in relations to row configuration and plant density in drip-irrigated cotton. J Cotton Res. 2024;7:13.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTian Y, Lioa B, Han H, et al. The efficacy of chemical topping in field-grown cotton is mediated by drip irrigation amount in irrigated agricultural area. J Cotton Res. 2022;5:16.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGwathmey CO, Clement JD. Alteration of cotton source\u0026ndash;sink relations with plant population density and mepiquat chloride. Field Crops Res. 2010;116:101\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDai J, Luo Z, Li W, et al. A simplified pruning method for profitable cotton production in the Yellow River valley of China. Field Crops Res. 2014;164:22\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao W, Yan Q, Yang H, et al. Effects of mepiquat chloride on yield and main properties of cottonseed under different plant densities. J Cotton Res. 2019;2:11\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhi XY, Han YC, Li YB, et al. Effects of plant density on cotton yield components and quality. J Integr Agric. 2016;15:1469\u0026ndash;79.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQi J, Zhang Y, Dai J, et al. Late-planted short-season cotton without plastic mulching is an alternative to early-planted mulched full-season cotton. Ind Crops Prod. 2021;163:113325.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen Y, Dong H. Mechanisms and regulation of senescence and maturity performance in cotton. Field Crops Res. 2016;189:1\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdams C, Thapa S, Kimura E. Determination of a plant population density threshold for optimizing cotton lint yield: a synthesis. Field Crops Res. 2019;230:11\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRademacher W. Growth retardants: effects on gibberellin biosynthesis and other metabolic pathways. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2000;51:501\u0026ndash;31.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhao D, Oosterhuis DM. Pix plus and mepiquat chloride effects on physiology, growth, and yield of field-grown cotton. J Plant Growth Regul. 2000;1:11\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSiebert JD, Stewart AM. Influence of plant density on cotton response to mepiquat chloride application. Agron J. 2006;98:1634\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTung SA, Huang Y, Hafeez A, et al. Mepiquat chloride effects on cotton yield and biomass accumulation under late sowing and high density. Field Crops Res. 2018;215:59\u0026ndash;65.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBasra A. Plant Growth Regulators in Agriculture and Horticulture: Their Role and Commercial Uses. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC; 2000.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReta-S\u0026aacute;nchez DG, Fowler JL. Canopy light environment and yield of narrow‐row cotton as affected by canopy architecture. Agron J. 2002;94:1317\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiang FB, Yang CX, Sui LL, et al. Flumetralin and dimethyl piperidinium chloride alter light distribution in cotton canopies by optimizing the spatial configuration of leaves and bolls. J Integr Agric. 2020;19:1777\u0026ndash;88.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTung SA, Huang Y, Hafeez A, et al. Morpho-physiological effects and molecular mode of action of mepiquat chloride application in cotton: a review. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2020;20:2073\u0026ndash;86.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNie J, Li Z, Zhang Y. Plant pruning affects photosynthesis and photoassimilate partitioning in relation to the yield formation of field-grown cotton. Ind Crops Prod. 2021;73:114087.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQin A, Aluko OO, Liu Z. Improved cotton yield: Can we achieve this goal by regulating the coordination of source and sink? Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1136636.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlfaqeih F, Ali A, Baswaid A. Effect of plant density on growth and yield of cotton. Univ Aden J Nat Appl Sci. 2002;6:279\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eReddy KV, Akula B, Reddy KI, et al. Influence of Plant Density vis-\u0026agrave;-vis Architecture on Growth Parameters Bt Cotton (\u003cem\u003eGossypium hirsutum\u003c/em\u003e L). Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(15):220\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShekar K, Ramana MV, Kumari SR. Response of hybrid cotton to chloro mepiquat chloride and detopping under high density planting. J Cotton Res Dev. 2015;29(1):84\u0026ndash;6.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCevheri CI. The effect of rain on fiber and yarn quality of cotton (\u003cem\u003eG. hirsutum\u003c/em\u003e L.) varieties in two different growing seasons. J Nat Fibers. 2022;19(9):3558\u0026ndash;70.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi F, Wang X, Wang XR, et al. Cotton chemical topping with mepiquat chloride application in the north of Yellow River valley of China. Sci Agric Sin. 2016;49:2497\u0026ndash;510.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang LJ, Chen JY, Qin YK, et al. Effects of chemical capping agent on direct cotton after rape. Hubei Agri Sci. 2021;60(8):36.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang CX, Zhang WF, Xu SZ, et al. Effects of spraying chemical topping agents on canopy structure and canopy photosynthetic production in cotton. Sci Agric Sin. 2016;49(9):1672\u0026ndash;84.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang WF, Wang ZL, Yu SL, et al. Effects of planting density on canopy photosynthesis, canopy structure and yield formation of high-yield cotton in Xinjiang, China. Chin J Plant Ecol. 2004;28(2):164\u0026ndash;71.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrodrick R, Bange MP, Milroy SP, et al. Physiological determinants of high yielding ultra-narrow row cotton: Canopy development and radiation use efficiency. Field Crops Res. 2013;148:86\u0026ndash;94.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYang WP, Guo TC, Liu SB, et al. Effects of row spacing in winter wheat on canopy structure and microclimate in later growth stage. Chin J Plant Ecol. 2008;32(2):485.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYaşar M, Başbağ S, Ekinci R. Pamukta Farklı Zamanlarda Kesilerek Uzaklaştırılan Tepe S\u0026uuml;rg\u0026uuml;n\u0026uuml; Uygulamasının Lif Verimi ve Kalitesi \u0026Uuml;zerine Etkisi. J Inst Sci Technol. 2017;7(2):327\u0026ndash;33.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDong HZ, Wei TA, Li WJ, et al. Yield, leaf senescence, and Cry1Ac expression in response to removal of early fruiting branches in transgenic Bt cotton. Agric Sci China. 2008;7(6):692\u0026ndash;702.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMohammed HA. Chemical Modification Treatments on Extra-Long Egyptian Cotton Fiber. Int J Adv Sci Eng. 2021;8(1).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKittock DL, Fry KE. Effects of topping pima cotton on lint yield and boll retention. Agron J. 1997;69(1):65\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJalilian S, Madani H, Vafaie-Tabar M, et al. Plant density influences yield, yield components, lint quality and seed oil content of cotton genotypes. OCL. 2023;30:12.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi WX, Chen M, Chen WT, et al. Determination of mepiquat chloride in cotton crops and soil and its dissipation rates. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2012;85:137\u0026ndash;43.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u0026Aacute;lvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, et al. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride). Efsa J. 2024;22(7):e8860.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). R.E.D. Facts: Mepiquat Chloride (EPA-738-F-96-019). Washington (DC): US EPA; 1997.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-plant-biology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pbio","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Plant Biology](http://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbio/default.aspx","title":"BMC Plant Biology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Chemical topping, Crop architecture, Planting density, Climate change, Fiber traits","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882157/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882157/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCotton growers face low yield problems in late-sown cotton after wheat harvest. The present study aims to explore the optimal combination of different canopy management methods and planting densities for yield enhancement in late-sown cotton. A two-year (2022 and 2023) field experiment was carried out in the agronomic student research area at the University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan (31.43\u0026deg; N and 73.07\u0026deg; E). The field experimental design was a randomized complete block design with a factorial arrangement comprising two factors: planting density (D\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e: 87489 plants hm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e, D\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: 58326 plants hm\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;2\u003c/sup\u003e) and canopy management techniques (C\u003csub\u003e0\u003c/sub\u003e: control, C\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: pruning, C\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: chemical topping, C\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: manual topping, C\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e: chemical topping\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;pruning and C\u003csub\u003e5\u003c/sub\u003e: manual topping\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;pruning).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eChemical topping plus pruning was found to be the most effective at increasing the sympodial branch count, with an increase of 38%, compared with the control at planting density D\u003csub\u003e1,\u003c/sub\u003e which also increased the number of bolls and the yield of seed cotton. On the other hand, manual topping plus pruning was found to outperform other methods in improving fiber traits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhen an optimal combination of chemical topping plus pruning is chosen, cotton yield can be increased in late snowy cotton, which can be a promising technique for sustainable cotton production in cotton‒wheat cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Optimal combination of canopy management and planting density for yield enhancement in late-sown cotton","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-11 11:10:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7882157/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-17T08:47:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-12T07:17:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-12-09T11:02:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"51225649294922389826290415470396603921","date":"2025-12-09T05:55:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"22928241310849382604427322706241407270","date":"2025-12-03T13:18:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-25T17:26:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"248171387140967596524298144754123379220","date":"2025-11-14T12:27:13+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"157826716941559613859921691019928803829","date":"2025-11-01T08:39:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"316143154679784452282614431915154525319","date":"2025-10-31T07:19:16+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-31T04:55:25+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-27T09:59:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-24T01:19:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-10-24T01:19:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Plant Biology","date":"2025-10-17T03:14:00+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-plant-biology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pbio","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Plant Biology](http://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbio/default.aspx","title":"BMC Plant Biology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2c253c0e-31e7-446e-8c8a-bbf2cbbbe37e","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-26T15:59:44+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7882157","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-026-08163-z","journal":{"identity":"bmc-plant-biology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Plant Biology"},"publishedOn":"2026-01-19 15:57:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 19th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-11 11:10:34","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12870-026-08163-z","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-026-08163-z","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7882157","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7882157","identity":"rs-7882157","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}