ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Comparison and screening of chemical topping agents for optimizing root-shoot coordination, photosynthetic efficiency and yield in south of the Tianshan mountains in Xinjiang.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Although chemical topping agents are now widely used in cotton production, there is a lack of research on screening specialized formulations tailored to the unique ecological conditions of cotton region south of the Tianshan Mountains in Xinjiang. Current reliance on a single-agent application regime often leads to suboptimal efficacy. Given that the root-shoot system is a core determinant of high cotton yields, the underlying mechanism by which chemical topping agents modulate root-shoot coordination remains largely elusive. Methods: A two-year field trial was conducted during 2024 and 2025, involving three different chemical topping agents (X1: zifengding agent, X2: paclobutrazol-copper complex, X3: paclobutrazol-zinc complex), manual topping (CK) was conducted as a control. A total of four treatments were included. Results: Different chemical topping treatments effectively controlled plant height (PH) and increased number of fruiting branches (NFB) compared to manual topping (CK). It significantly enhanced the net photosynthetic rate (Pn), stomatal conductance (Gs), and transpiration rate (Tr), while reducing intercellular CO Conclusion: This study breaks the extensive "one-size-fits-all" application mode. Specifically, the X3 treatment enables precise and localized application of chemical topping technology, providing theoretical and technical support for high-yield, high-quality, efficient, and green cotton cultivation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.