Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 365–375 | Cite as

Evaluation of unconstrained and constrained mathematical functions to model girth growth of rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis) using young age measurements

  • T. R. Chandrasekhar
Original Paper


No attempt has been made to date to model growth in girth of rubber tree (Hevea brasiliansis). We evaluated the few widely used growth functions to identify the most parsimonious and biologically reasonable model for describing the girth growth of young rubber trees based on an incomplete set of young age measurements. Monthly data for girth of immature trees (age 2 to 12 years) from two locations were subjected to modelling. Re-parameterized, unconstrained and constrained growth functions of Richards (RM), Gompertz (GM) and the monomolecular model (MM) were fitted to data. Duration of growth was the constraint introduced. In the first stage, we attempted a population average (PA) model to capture the trend in growth. The best PA model was fitted as a subject specific (SS) model. We used appropriate error variance-covariance structure to account for correlation due to repeated measurements over time. Unconstrained functions underestimated the asymptotic maximum that did not reflect the carrying capacity of the locations. Underestimations were attributed to the partial set of measurements made during the early growth phase of the trees. MM proved superior to RM and GM. In the random coefficient models, both Gf and G0 appeared to be influenced by tree level effects. Inclusion of diagonal definite positive matrix removed the correlation between random effects. The results were similar at both locations. In the overall assessment MM appeared as the candidate model for studying the girth-age relationships in Hevea trees. Based on the fitted model we conclude that, in Hevea trees, growth rate is maintained at maximum value at t0, then decreases until the final state at dG/dt ≥0, resulting in yield curve with no period of accelerating growth. One physiological explanation is that photosynthetic activity in Hevea trees decreases as girth increases and constructive metabolism is larger than destructive metabolism.


natural rubber Hevea Brasiliensis growth modelling unconstrained functions constrained functions mixed model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amaro A, Reed D, Tome M, Themido I. 1998. Modelling dominant height growth: Eucalyptus plantations in Portugal. Forest Science, 44: 37–46.Google Scholar
  2. Baulkwill WJ. 1989. The history of natural rubber production. In: C.C. Webster and W.J. Baulkwill (eds), Rubber. UK: Longman Scientific and Technical, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
  3. Caillet GM, Smith WD, Mollet HF, Goldman KJ. 2006. Age and growth studies of chondrichthyan fishes: the need for consitency in terminology, verification, validation and growth function fitting. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 77: 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Causton DR, Venus JC. 1981. The biometry of plant growth. Edward Arnold, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Chandrasekhar TR, Alice J, Varghese YA, Saraswathyamma CK, Vijayakumar KR. 2005. Girth growth of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) trees during the immature phase. Journal of Tropical Forest Science, 17: 399–415.Google Scholar
  6. Chandrashekar TR. 2007. Weather and growth performance of young rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis). Ph. D. Thesis, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, India.Google Scholar
  7. Chandrashekar TR, Nazeer MA, Marattukalam JG, Prakash GP, Annamalainathan K, Thomas J. 1998. An analysis of growth and drought tolerance in rubber during the immature phase in a dry subhumid climate. Experimental Agriculture, 34: 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delignette-Muller ML, Baty F. 2010. Use of package nlstools to help the fit assess the quality of fit of a gaussian nonlinear model. Available at [accessed 27 December 2010].
  9. El-Shaarawi AH, Piegorsch WW. 2002. Encyclopedia of environmetrics (Vol.1), UK: Wiley, pp 32–41.Google Scholar
  10. Fekedulegn D, Mac Siurtain MP, Colbert JJ. 1999. Parameter estimation of nonlinear growth models in forestry. Silva Fennica, 33: 327–336.Google Scholar
  11. France J, Thornley JHM. 1984. Mathematical models in agriculture. UK: Butterworths, pp 223–235.Google Scholar
  12. Gregoire TG, Schabenberger O. 1996. A non-linear mixed effects model to predict cumulative bole volume of standing trees. Journal of Applied Statistics, 23: 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gregoire TG, Brillinger DR, Diggle PJ, Russek-Cohen E, Warren WG, Wolfinger RD. 1997. Modelling longitudinal and spatially correlated data. Springer-Verlag, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunt R. 1982. Plant growth curves, the functional approach to plant growth analysis. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  15. Lei YC, Zhang SY. 2004. Features and partial derivatives of Bertalanffy-Richards growth model in forestry. Non linear analysis: Modelling and control, 9: 65–73.Google Scholar
  16. Liu Zhao-gang, Li Feng-ri. 2003. The generalized Chapman-Ricahrds function and applications to tree and stand growth. Journal of Forestry Research, 14: 16–26.Google Scholar
  17. Ogle DH. 2010. Von Bertalanffy growth model vignette. Available from [Accessed 27 December 2010].
  18. Philip MS. 1994. Measuring trees and forests. 2nd Edition. Wallingford, UK: CAB International,.Google Scholar
  19. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM. 2000. Mixed effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Potty SN, Kodandaraman R, Mathew M. 1980. Field upkeep. In: P.N. Radhakrishna Pillay (ed), Hand book of Natural Rubber Production in India. Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, India. pp 135–156.Google Scholar
  21. Punnoose KI, Kodandaraman R, Philip V, Jessy MD. 2000. Field upkeep and intercropping. In: P.J. George and C.K. Jacob (eds), Narural Rubber Agromanagement and Crop Processing. Kottayam, India: The Rubber Research Institute of India, pp 149–169.Google Scholar
  22. Pushpadas MV, Ahammed M. 1980. Nutritional requirements and manorial recommendations. In: P.N. Radhakrishna Pillay (ed), Hand book of Natural Rubber Production in India. Kottayam, India: Rubber Research Institute of India, pp 159–185.Google Scholar
  23. R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available from [accessed 31 January 2011].
  24. Ratkowsky DA. 1988. Handbook of Nonlinear Regression Models. Marcel Dekker, NewYork.Google Scholar
  25. Richards FJ. 1959. A flexible growth function for empirical use. Journal of Experimental Botany, 10: 290–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rose DA, Charles-Edwards DA. 1981. Mathematics and plant physiology. Academic press, London.Google Scholar
  27. Salas C, Garcia O. 2006. Modelling height development of mature Nothofagus obliqua. Forest Ecology and Management, 229: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Seber GFA, Wild CJ. 2003. Nonlinear Regression. USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.,.Google Scholar
  29. Shifley SR, Brand GJ. 1984. Chapman-Richards growth function constrained for maximum tree size. Forest Science, 30: 1066–1070.Google Scholar
  30. Shorrocks VM, Templeton JK, Iyer GC. 1965. Mineral Nutrition, growth and nutrient cycle of Hevea brasiliensis III. The relationship between girth and shoot dry weight. Journal of Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, 19: 83–92.Google Scholar
  31. Thornley JHM, France J. 2007. Mathematical Models in Agriculture, 2nd ed. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar
  32. Thornley JHM, Johnson IR. 1990. Plant and crop modelling: a mathematical approach to plant and crop physiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Vanclay JK. 1994. Modelling forest growth and yield. Wallingford, UK: CAB International,.Google Scholar
  34. Vanclay JK, Skovsgaard JV. 1997. Evaluating forest growth models. Ecological Modelling, 98: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vonesh EF, Chinchilli VM. 1997. Linear and nonlinear models for the analysis of repeated measurements. New York: Marcell Dekker.Google Scholar
  36. Webster CC, Paardekooper EC. 1989. The botany of the rubber tree. In: C.C. Webster and W.J. Baulkwill (eds), Rubber. England: Longman Scientific and Technical, pp 57–84.Google Scholar
  37. Winsor CP. 1932. The Gompertz curve as a growth curve. Proceedings of the Nattionla Academy of Sciences, 16: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zeide B. 1993. Analysis of growth equation. Forest Science, 39: 594–616.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rubber Research Institute of IndiaHevea Breeding Sub StationKadabaIndia

Personalised recommendations