Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 275–281 | Cite as

Active root distribution pattern of Hevea brasiliensis determined by radioassay of latex serum

  • Sherin George
  • P. R. Suresh
  • P. A. Wahid
  • Ramesh B. Nair
  • K. I. Punnoose
Article

Abstract

The active root distribution pattern of mature rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) up to a lateral distance of 250 cm from the tree and to a soil depth of 90 cm was studied in an oxisol by employing 32P soil injection technique in Kerala, the state which accounts for 83% of rubber cultivation in India. The trees were aged 18 years and grown at a spacing of 4.9 × 4.9 m. The extent of absorption of applied 32P by the tree from various placements was assessed by radio assay of leaf and latex serum. Latex serum registered higher counts and variability was less compared to leaf indicating the suitability of latex serum as a potential source for radio assay for 32P studies in rubber. The results revealed that rubber is a surface feeder with 55% of the root activity confining to the top 10 cm of soil layer. Root activity declined with increasing depths and the concentration of physiologically active roots at 90 cm depth was only 6%. A more or less uniform distribution of root activity was noticed with respect to lateral distance indicating more extensive spread of lateral roots. Concentration of physiologically active roots in the surface layer suggests the possibility for competition under intercropped situation in mature plantations.

Keywords

Hevea Root distribution 32P soil injection Root competition 

References

  1. Gregory PJ, Buresh RJ, Vivesley SJ (2000) Competition in tree row agroforestry systems. 1. Distribution and length of fine root length and biomass. Plant Soil 227:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Hamblin PA (1985) The influence of soil structure on water movement, crop root growth and water uptake. Adv Agron 38:95–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. IAEA (1975) Root activity patterns of some tree crops. Technical Report Series No.170, IAEA, Vienna, p 154Google Scholar
  4. Joseph M (1999) Studies on some competing factors in the intercropping systems of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Mull. Arg.) Ph.D. Thesis submitted to Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, TrichurGoogle Scholar
  5. Krishnakumar AK, Gupta C, Sinha RR, Sethuraj MR, Potty SN, Eapen T, Das K (1991) Ecological impact of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations in North East India: 2. Soil properties and biomass recycling. Ind J Nat Rubb Res 4(2):134–141Google Scholar
  6. Lehmann J, Muraoka T, Zech W (2001) Root activity pattern in an Amazonian agroforest with fruit trees determined by 32P, 33P, and 15N applications. Agroforest Syst 52:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lynen F (1969) Biochemical problems of rubber synthesis. J Rubb Res Inst Malaya 21(4):389–406Google Scholar
  8. Nair PKR, Buresh RJ, Majendi DN, Latt CR (1999) Nutrient recycling in tropical agroforestry systems: myths and science. In: Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernades ECM (eds) Agroforestry in sustainable agricultural systems. CRC Press, Lewis Publishers, Boca Ratan, pp 1–31Google Scholar
  9. Ong CK, Corlett JE, Singh RP, Black CR (1991) Above and below ground interactions in agroforestry systems. For Ecol Manage 45:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Philip V, Rao DVKN, Varghese M, Vinod KK, Pothen J, Krishnakumar AK (1996) Spacial distribution of roots and nutrients in soil under rubber plantations in Tripura. Indian J Nat Rubb Res 9(2):123–129Google Scholar
  11. Qun LC (1984) Radiotracer studies on rock activity and foliar uptake by rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis). Proceedings of third international annual conference on soil and nutrition of perennial crops. Kuala Lumpur, pp 245–257Google Scholar
  12. Rubber Board (2006) Indian rubber statistics, vol 27. Rubber Board, Kottayam, India, 71 ppGoogle Scholar
  13. Samarapuli L, Yogaratnam N, Karunadas P, Mitrasena IH (1996) Root development in Hevea brasiliensis in relation to management practices. J Rubb Res Inst Srilanka 77:93–111Google Scholar
  14. Soong NK (1976) Feeder root development of Hevea brasiliensis in relation to clones and environment. J Rubb Res Inst Malaysia 2(5):282–298Google Scholar
  15. Soong NK, Pushparajah E, Singh NM, Talibudeen C (1971) Determination of active root distribution of Hevea brasiliensis using radio active phosphorus. Proceedings of international symposium on soil fertility evaluation. Kuala Lumpur, pp 309–375Google Scholar
  16. Srinivasan K, Kunhamu TK, Mohankumar B (2004) Root excavation studies in a mature rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) plantation. Nat Rubb Res 17(1):18–22Google Scholar
  17. Varghese M, Sharma AC, Pothen J (2001) Addition of litter, its decomposition and nutrient release in rubber plantations in Kerala. India B Nat Rubb Res 14(2):116–124Google Scholar
  18. Veeraputran S, Rajasekharan P (1998) Multi objective land use planning model for intercropping of small rubber holding. A compromise programming approach. Indian J Nat Rubb Res 11(1&2):31–37Google Scholar
  19. Wahid PA, Kamalam NV, Sankar SJ (1985) Determination of 32P in wet digested plant leaves by cerenkov counting. Int J Appl Rad Isot 36:323–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wahid PA, Kamalam LV, Sankar SJ (1988) A device for soil injection of 32P in root activity studies of tree crops. J Plant Crops 16:62–64Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sherin George
    • 1
  • P. R. Suresh
    • 2
  • P. A. Wahid
    • 2
  • Ramesh B. Nair
    • 1
  • K. I. Punnoose
    • 1
  1. 1.Rubber Research Institute of IndiaKottayamIndia
  2. 2.Kerala Agricultural UniversityTrichurIndia

Personalised recommendations