Journal of Forestry Research

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 429–434 | Cite as

Intra- and inter-clonal tree growth variations of Hevea brasiliensis

Original Paper

Abstract

We evaluated the effects of planting densities (500, 1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 trees·ha−1) on tree growth performance (diameter at base, diameter at breast height, and clear bole height) of two clones (RRIM 2020 and RRIM 2025) of nine years old plantations of rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg) in Malaysia. For the four planting densities of the two clones, basal area and diameter at breast height declined with increasing planting density. Clear bole heights were greatest at 1,500 trees·ha−1 and lowest at 500 trees·ha−1 for the clone RRIM 2020, and at 2,000 trees·ha−1 and 500 trees·ha−1 for clone RRIM 2025. We conclude that the ideal planting density is 2,000 trees·ha−1 for obtaining high volume of wood production and 500 trees·ha−1 for high wood quality.

Key words

clone planting density tree growth Hevea brasiliensis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akram Nasir M, Aziz A, Mohar TA, Abdul Rehman M, Ahmad S. 2006. Effect of planting distance on tree growth and fruit quality of shamber grape fruit under agro climatic conditions of Sargodha. J Agric Res, 44(4): 353–358.Google Scholar
  2. Alfred BR. 2007. Structure of stressed and non-stressed wood of Acacia hybrid and its relation to physical properties. Ph. D thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 227 p.Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous. 2010. Weather station report. Tok dor, Mini Station of Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia (RRIMINIS), Terengganu.Google Scholar
  4. Ballard LA, Long NJ. 1988. Influence of stand density on log quality of lodgepole pine. Can J For Res, 18(7): 911–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bamber RK, Burley J. 1983. The wood properties of radiate pine. Slough, England: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
  6. Brown C. 2000. The global outlook for future wood supply from forest plantations: Global Forest Products Outlook Study. FAO Paper. Working Paper Series. Working Paper No: GFPOS/WP/03.Google Scholar
  7. Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations): 156.Google Scholar
  8. Chadha KL. 2001. Hand book of Horticulture; Orchard planting and layout. New Delhi, ICAR. 1031.Google Scholar
  9. Cockerham ST. 2004. Irrigation and planting density affect River Red Gum growth. California Agriculture, 58(1): 40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fangs S, Li GY, Fu XX. 2004. Biomass production and bark yield in the plantations of Pteroceltis tatarinowii. Biomass & Bioenergy, 26(4): 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grote R, Pretzsch H. 2002. A model for individual tree development based on physiological processes. Plant Biology, 4: 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hein S, Weiskittel AR, Kohnle U. 2008. Effect of wide spacing on tree growth, branch and sapwood properties of young Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) in south-western Germany. European Journal of Forest, 127: 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. IRRDB. 2008. Rubberwood section (the International Rubber Research and Development Board). Available at http://www.irrdb.com. [Retrieved 20.02.2011]
  14. Kenk G. 1990. Wide spacing in Norway spruce stands. Development and consequences. Forstw Cbl, 109: 86–100 (in German with English summary).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerr G. 2003. Effects of spacing on the early growth of planted Fraxinus excelsior L. Can J For Res, 33: 1196–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lei H, Gartner LB, Milota MR. 1997. Effect of growth rate on the anatomy, specific gravity, and bending properties of wood from 7-year-old red alder (Alnus rubra). Can J For Res, 27: 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mohd Izham BY. 2001. Quality assessment of two timbre latex clones of Rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis). Masters Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia.Google Scholar
  18. Naji HR, Sahri MH, Nobuchi T, Bakar ES. 2011. The effect of growth rate on wood density and anatomical characteristics of rubberwood (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) in two different clonal trails, J Nat Prod Plant Resour, 1(2): 71–80.Google Scholar
  19. Niemisto P. 1995. Influence of initial spacing and row-to-row distance on the crown and branch properties and taper of silver birch (Betula pendula). Scand J For Res, 10: 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nobuchi T, Sahri MH. 2008. The Formation of Wood in Tropical Forest Trees: A challenge from the perspective of functional wood anatomy. Malaysia, Penerbit Universiti Putra Malaysia, p. 186.Google Scholar
  21. Ogata Y, Nobuchi T, Fujita M, Sahri MH. 2001. Growth rings and tree growth in young para rubber trees from Peninsular Malaysia. IAWA journal, 22(1): 43–56.Google Scholar
  22. Pérez Corderoa LD, Kanninenc M, Ugalde LA. 2003. Stand growth scenarios for Bombacopsis quinata plantations in Costa Rica. Forest Ecology and Management, 174: 345–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pretzsch H. 2005. Stand density and growth of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) and European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.): evidence from longterm experimental plots. Eur J For Res, 124(3): 193–205.Google Scholar
  24. Rodrigo, VHL, Silva TUK, Munasinghe ES. 2004. Improving the spatial arrangement of planting rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) for longterm intercropping. Field Crops Research, 89: 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scott W, Meade R, Leon R. 1998. Planting density and tree-size relations in coast Douglas-fir. Can J For Res, 28: 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shigematsu A, Mizoue N, Kajisa T, Yoshida S. 2011. Importance of rubberwood in wood export of Malaysia and Thailand. New Forests, 41: 179–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tuberman L. 2007. Rubber Wood — Plantation Grown Wood. Available at http://EzineArticles.com [Retrieved 18.04.2011]
  28. Wei HY, Wang Y, Wang Z, Yan X. 2005. Effect of planting density on plant growth and camptothecin content of Camptotheca acuminate seedlings. Journal of Forestry Research, 16(2): 137–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhu JY, Tim Scott C, Scallon K. 2007. Effects of plantation density on wood density and anatomical properties of Red Pine (Pinus resinosa Ait.). Wood and Fiber Science Journal, 39(3): 502–512.Google Scholar
  30. Zobeiry M. 2005. Forest Inventory (Measurment of Tree and Forest). Tehran: University of Tehran Press, p. 401.Google Scholar
  31. Zobel BJ, Van Buijtenen JP. 1989. Wood Variation; Its Causes and Control. Berlin: Speringer-Verlag, P. 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Northeast Forestry University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Production, Faculty of ForestryUniversiti Putra MalaysiaSelangorMalaysia
  2. 2.Department of Forestry, Faculty of AgricultureIlam UniversityIlamIran

Personalised recommendations