Apical dominance inhibition is important in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production due to its indeterminate growth habit. Apical dominance can be inhibited physically by the manual removal of apical buds or chemically by the application of plant growth regulators. However, knowledge of the yield and boll distribution of cotton under different methods of apical dominance inhibition remains limited. Thus, an experiment was conducted to evaluate the effects of different methods of apical dominance inhibition (physical inhibition, chemical inhibition and no inhibition) on the plant growth, within-plant boll distribution, crop maturity, yield and fiber quality of cotton from 2016 to 2018. Compared with no inhibition, chemical inhibition and especially physical inhibition reduced plant height, whereas only physical inhibition promoted the ratio of fruiting sites to fruiting branches, which indicated that chemical inhibition resulted in a more compact plant type than physical inhibition. Earlier crop maturity was observed with both physical and chemical inhibition methods than without inhibition, and this finding was attributed to a higher number of inner bolls at lower and middle nodes. The lint yield response to the different inhibition methods varied among years and between varieties. The lint yield of XIN4 was significantly enhanced by physical inhibition and chemical inhibition in 2 of the 3 years, by an average of 11.5 % and 8.7 %, respectively. An effect of inhibition method on the lint yield of CRI60 was observed only in 2016, in which physical inhibition significantly improved the lint yield by 14.0 % compared with that obtained without inhibition. Chemical inhibition achieved a similar lint yield to physical inhibition in all three years. Fiber quality was slightly reduced under chemical inhibition compared to physical inhibition, but the values were within the acceptable range regarding grade standards. Overall, although apical dominance inhibition did not consistently improve lint yield, it remains a desirable management tool for achieving a favorable cotton architecture for mechanical harvest. Additionally, chemical inhibition appears to be a promising alternative to physical inhibition in cotton production due to its simplicity as a management tool.

顶端优势抑制在棉花中很重要（Gossypium hirsutumL.) 生产由于其不确定的生长习性。顶端优势可以通过手动去除顶芽或通过应用植物生长调节剂以化学方式抑制。然而，在不同的顶端优势抑制方法下棉花的产量和棉铃分布的知识仍然有限。为此，开展了2016年至2016年间不同顶端优势抑制方法（物理抑制、化学抑制和无抑制）对棉花植株生长、植铃分布、作物成熟度、产量和纤维品质的影响。 2018. 与无抑制相比，化学抑制，尤其是物理抑制降低了株高，而仅物理抑制促进了果位与果枝的比例，这表明化学抑制导致比物理抑制更紧凑的植物类型。使用物理和化学抑制方法观察到的作物成熟比不使用抑制方法更早，这一发现归因于下部和中间节点的内部棉铃数量更多。对不同抑制方法的皮棉产量反应因年份和品种而异。在 3 年中的 2 年中，物理抑制和化学抑制显着提高了 XIN4 的皮棉产量，平均分别提高了 11.5% 和 8.7%。仅在 2016 年观察到抑制方法对 CRI60 皮棉产量的影响，其中物理抑制与未抑制的相比显着提高了 14.0% 的皮棉产量。在所有三年中，化学抑制实现了与物理抑制相似的棉绒产量。与物理抑制相比，化学抑制下的纤维质量略有降低，但这些值在等级标准的可接受范围内。总体而言，尽管顶端优势抑制并没有持续提高皮棉产量，但它仍然是一种理想的管理工具，可实现对机械收获有利的棉花结构。此外，化学抑制似乎是棉花生产中物理抑制的一种有前途的替代方法，因为它作为一种管理工具很简单。尽管顶端优势抑制并没有始终如一地提高皮棉产量，但它仍然是一种理想的管理工具，可以为机械收获实现有利的棉花结构。此外，化学抑制似乎是棉花生产中物理抑制的一种有前途的替代方法，因为它作为一种管理工具很简单。尽管顶端优势抑制并没有始终如一地提高皮棉产量，但它仍然是一种理想的管理工具，可以为机械收获实现有利的棉花结构。此外，化学抑制似乎是棉花生产中物理抑制的一种有前途的替代方法，因为它作为一种管理工具很简单。