Role of Rubber-based Intercropping in Ensuring Sustainable Natural Rubber Production of Smallholders
Keywords:
Hevea brasiliensis, Rubber-based intercropping, Smallholder, Sustainable natural rubberAbstract
Hevea brasiliensis has been traditionally grown as a monocrop in tropical equatorial climate regions to supply the global demand for natural rubber. The tremendous expansion of monocrop rubber plantations in mainland Southeast Asian countries in the 2000s has resulted in significant adverse environmental impacts, such as deforestation, soil erosion, local climate change, greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide emissions, and loss of natural resources. With the large involvement of smallholders, social-economic issues associated with the weakening of rubber prices, consequently low income, narrowing of income sources, raising the cost of production, and the shortage of workers have been generated as significant concerns to the sustainability of the natural rubber industry. As the nature of conventional rubber planting systems, large inter-row spaces between rubber trees are technically viable for rubber-based intercropping and agroforestry systems, contributing to ecological and economic sustainability. In general, intercrops in rubber farms could be categorized into three groups: initial intercrops, permanent intercrops, and cover crops. Intercrops improve the growth and height of the young rubber plants and result in higher tappability per hectare of rubber, ensuring that a higher yield could be harvested. Rubber intercropping significantly enhances soil moisture, root density and distribution, and soil microbial activities. High carbon content in the soil, rich mulch litters, and lower soil erosion in rubber intercropping reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rubber-based intercropping benefits the farmers mainly with respect to their incomes and resilience. Despite this, they have faced some constraints in adopting rubber-based intercropping systems and achieving the sustainability benefits of the systems. Thus, interventions with promoting intercropping schemes in supporting initial investments, transferring technologies, providing high-yield cultivars and other inputs, and creating potential markets for intercrops are suggested. Promoting the development of smallholders’ rubber production through adopting rubber-based intercropping ensures agroecosystem, economic, and social improvements in the smallholder sector and could revitalize the sustainability of the natural rubber industry.
References
Ahrends, A., Hollingsworth, P.M., Ziegler, A.D., Fox, J.M., Chen, H., Su, Y. and Xu, J. 2015. Current trends of rubber plantation expansion may threaten biodiversity and livelihoods. Global Environmental Changes 34: 48-58.
Araujo, A.V., Partelli, F.L., Oliosi, G. and Pezzopane, J.R.M. 2016. Microclimate, development and productivity of Robusta coffee shaded by rubber trees and at full sun. REvista Ciencia Agronomica 47: 700-709.
Bergeron, M., Lacombe, S., Bradley, R.L., Whalen, J., Cogliastro, A., Jutras, M.F. and Arp, P. 2011. Reduced soil nutrient leaching following the establishment of tree-based intercropping systems in eastern Canada. Agroforest Systems 83: 321-330.
Blencowe, J.W. 1989. Organization and improvement of smallholder production. In Rubber (eds. C.C. Webster and W.J. Baulkwill), pp. 499-538. New York: Longman Scientific and Technical.
Budiman, A.F.S. and Penot, E. 1997. Smallholder rubber agroforestry in Indonesia. International Rubber Conference 1997, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6-9 October 1997.
Bybee-Finley, K.A. and Matthew, R.R. 2018. Advancing intercropping research and practices in industrialized agricultural landscapes. Agriculture 8: 80.
Byerlee, D. 2014. The fall and rise again of plantations in tropical Asia: History repeated? Land 3: 574-597.
Carson, S., Stroebel, A., Dawson, I., Kindt, R., Mbow, C., Mowo, J. and Jamnadass, R. 2014. Can agroforestry option values improve the functioning of drivers of agricultural intensification in Africa? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: 35-40.
Chan, W.H. Zainal, A.M.G. and Chuah, H.C. 1983. Preliminary results of low intensity tapping systems with stimulation of PR 107 and GT 1. Proceedings of Planters’ Conference Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia 1983, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 193.
Chandrasekera, L.B. 1979. Intercropping. In Review of the botany department. Annual Review for 1979, pp. 6-39. Agalawatta: Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka.
Chen, C., Liu, W., Jiang, X. and Wu, J. 2017. Effects of rubber-based agroforestry systems on soil aggregation and associated soil organic carbon: implication for land use. Geoderma 299: 13-24.
Chen, C., Liu, W., Wu, J., Jiang, X. and Zhu, X. 2019. Can intercropping with the cash crop help improve the soil physio-chemical properties of rubber plantations? Geoderma 335: 149-160.
Chen, B., Ma, J., Yang, C., Xiao, X., Kou, W., Wu, Z., Yun, T., Zaw, Z.N., Nawan, P., Sengprakhon, R., Zhou, J., Wang, J., Sun, R., Zhang, X., Xie, G. and Lan, G. 2023. Diversified land conversion deepens understanding of impacts of rapid rubber plantation expansion on plant diversity in the tropics. Science of The Total Environment 874: 162505.
Cherdehom, P., Prommee, P. and Somboonsuke, B. 2002. Economic performances of small holding rubber-based farms in southern region Thailand: Case study in Khao phra Phijit and Khlong phea communities Songkhla province. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences 23: 151-166.
Deng, X., Joly, R.J. and Hahn, D.T. 1990. The influence of plant water deficit on photosynthesis and translocation of 14C-labeled assimilates in cacao seedlings. Physiologia Plantarum 78: 623-627.
Elmholt, S., Schjjonning, P., munkholm, L.J. and Debosz, K. 2008. Soil management effects on aggregate stability and biological binding. Geoderma 144: 455-467.
ERIA, 2016. Production and distribution environment of natural rubber farmer. In Research for consideration of a policy proposal to reform the natural rubber industry’s structure and stablise farmers’ dealing condition in Thailand (eds. Hajime Yamamoto), pp. 24-54. Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia.
Fox, J. and Castella, J.C. 2013. Expansion of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) in Mainland Southeast Asia: What are the prospects for smallholders? The Journal of Peasant Studies 40: 155-170.
Fu, Y., Chen, J., Guo, H., Hu, H., Chen, A. and Cui, J. 2010. Agrobiodiversity loss and livelihood vulnerability as a consequence of converting from subsistence farming systems to commercial plantation-dominated systems in Xishuangbanna, Yunnan, China: a household level analysis. Land Degradation and Development 21: 274-284.
Guardiola-Claramonte, M., Troch, P.A., Ziegler, A.D. Giambelluca, T.W., Vogler, J.B. and Nullet, M.A. 2008. Local hydrologic effects of introducing non-native vegetation in tropical catchment. Ecohydrology 1: 13-22.
Guo, Z., Zhang, Y., Deegen, P. and Uibrig, H. 2006. Economic analyses of rubber and tea plantations and rubber-tea intercropping in Hainan, China. Agroforestry Systems 66: 117-127.
Hassan, J., Sivakumaran, S. and Said, M.A.K.M. 1999. Economics of low intensity tapping systems. Proceedings of the seminar on low intensity tapping systems (LITS), Sungei Buloh, Malaysia, 10 August 1989, pp. 103-122.
Herath, P.H.M.U. and Takeya, H. 2002. Factors determining intercropping by rubber smallholders in Sri Lanka: a logit analysis. Agricultural Economics 29: 159-168.
Hougni, D.J.M., Chambon, B., Penot, E. and Promkhambut, A. 2018. The household economics of rubber intercropping during the immature period in Northeast Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 37: 787-803.
IRSG. 2014. Voluntary sustainable natural rubber initiative. International Rubber Study Group.
Jayasena, W.G. and Herath, H.M.G. 1986. Innovation, receptivity and adoption in rubber smallholdings of Sri Lanka. Agrarian Research and Training Institute, Sri Lanka.
Jongrungrot, V. and Thungwa, S. 2014. Resilience of rubber-based intercropping system in Southern Thailand. Advanced Material Research 844: 24-29.
Kudoyarova, G.R., Dodd, I.C., Veselov, D.S., Rothwell, S.A. and Veselov, S.Y. 2015. Common and specific responses to availability of mineral nutrients and water. Journal of Experimental Botany 66: 2133-44.
Kumara, P.R., Munasinghe, E.S., Rodrigo, V.H.L. and Karunaratna, A.S. 2016. Carbon footprint of rubber/sugarcane intercropping system in Sri Lanka: A case study. Procedia Food Science 6: 298-302.
Langenberger, G., Cadisch, G., Martin, K., Min, S. and Waibel, H. 2017. Rubber intercropping: A viable concept for the 21st century? Agroforest Systems 91: 577-596.
Laosuwan, P. 1996. Intercropping of young rubber. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology 3: 171-179.
Lei, P., Ni, C., Chen, F., Wang, S., Zhong, S., Tan, S., Ni, J. and Xie, D. 2021. Effects of crop–hedgerow intercropping on the soil physicochemical properties and crop yield on sloping cultivated lands in a purple soil of southwestern China. Forests 12:962.
Li, H., Ma, Y., Aide, T.M. and Liu, W. 2008. Past, present and future land-use in Xishuangbanna, China and the implication of carbon dynamics. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 16-24.
Lin, B.B. 2011. Resilience in Agriculture through crop diversification: Adaptive management for environmental change. BioScience 61: 183-193.
Mousavi, S.R. and Eskandari, H. 2011. A general overview on intercropping and its advantages in sustainable agriculture. Journal of Applied Environmental and Biology Sciences 1: 482-486.
Munro, J.F. 1981. Monopolists and speculators: British investment in West African rubber, 1905–1914. Journal of African History 22: 263–278.
Newman, S.M. 1985. A survey of interculture practices and research in Sri Lanka. Agroforestry Systems 3: 25-36.
Nugawela, A., Peries, M.R.C., Wijesekera, S. and Samarasekera, R.K. 2000. Evaluation of d/3 tapping with stimulation to alleviate problems related to d/2 tapping of Hevea. Journal of Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka 83: 49-61.
Pathiratna, L.S.S. and Edirisinghe, J.C. 2004. Agronomic and economic viability of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.)/ cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum J Pres.) intercropping systems involving wider inter-row spacing in rubber plantations. Journal of Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka. 86: 46-57
Pathiratna, L.S.S. 2006. Cinnamon for intercropping under rubber. Bulletin of the Rubber Research Institue of Sri Lanka 47: 17-23.
Punnoose, K.I., Kothandaraman, R., Philip, V. and Jessy, M.D. 2000. Field upkeep and intercropping. In Natural rubber: Agromanagement and crop processing (eds. P.J. George, and C. Kuruvilla Jacob), pp. 150-169. Kottayam: Rubber Research Institute of India. Kottayam, India.
Rodrigo, V.H.L. 2001. Rubber based intercropping systems. In Handbook of rubber Vol.1. Agronomy, pp. 139-155. Agalawatta: Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka.
Rodrigo, V.H.L. Stirling, C.M., Naranpanawa, R.M.A.K.B. and Herath, P.H.M.U. 2001. Intercropping of immature rubber present status in Sri Lanka and financial analysis of rubber intercrops planted with three densities of banana. Agroforestry Systems 51: 35-48.
Rodrigo, V.H.L., Stirling, C.M., Silva, T.U.K. and Pathirana, P.D. 2005. The growth and yield of rubber at maturity is improved by intercropping with banana during the early stage of rubber cultivation. Field Crops Research 91: 23-33.
Romyen, A., Sausue, P. and Charenjiratragul, S. 2017. Investigation of rubber-based intercropping system in Southern Thailand. Kasetsard Journal of Social Sciences 39: 135-142.
Rosyid, M.J., Wibawa, G. and Gunawan, A. 1997. Rubber based farming systems development for increasing smallholder’ income in Indonesia. Proceedings of International Rubber Research and Development Board Symposium on Farming System Aspects of the Cultivation of Natural Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis).Beruwela, Sri Lanka. pp. 17-24.
RRII. 1995. Annual report 1993-1994. Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, India.
RRIM. 2009. Plantation development. In Rubber plantation and processing technologies, pp. 97-138. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Rubber Board.
Siju, T., George, K.T. and Lakshmanan, R. 2012. Changing dimensions of intercropping in the immature phase of natural rubber cultivation: A case study of pineapple intercropping in central Kerala. Rubber Science 25: 164-172.
Somboonsuke, B. and Wettayaprasit, P. 2013. Agricultural system of natural para rubber smallholding sector in Thailand. Department of Agricultural Development, Faculty of Natural Resources, Prince of Songkla University.
Tan, Z.H., Zhang, Y.P., Song, Q.H., Liu, W.J., Deng, X.B. Tang, J.W., Zhou, W.J., Yang, L.Y., Yu, G.R., Sun, M.X. and Liang, N.S. 2011. Rubber plantations act as water pumps in tropical China. Geophysical Research Letters 38. L24406
Thomas, K.K., and Panikkar, A.O.N. 2000. Indian rubber plantation industry: Genesis and development. In: Natural rubber: Agromanagement and crop processing (eds., P.J. George and C.K. Jacob). Rubber Research Institute of India. Kottayam, India. pp. 1-19.
Umami, I.M., Kamarudin, K.N., Hermansah, and Abe, S.S. 2019. Does soil fertility decline under smallholder rubber farming? The case of a West Sumatran lowland in Indonesia. Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly 3: 279-297.
Vandermeer, J. 1992. Mechanisms of the competitive production principla. In The ecology of intercropping, pp. 68-87. Cambridge University Press.
Vijayakumar, K.R., Chandrashekar, T.R. and Philip, V. 2000. Agroclimate. In Natural rubber agromanagement and crop processing (eds. P.J. George. and C. Kuruvilla Jacob), pp. 97-128. Kottayam: Rubber Research Institute of India.
Vijayakumar, K.R., Thomus, K.U., Rajagopal, R. and Karunaichamy, K. 2001. Low frequency tapping systems for reduction in cost of production of natural rubber. Planter’s Chronicle 97: 451-454.
Vrignon-Brenas, S., Gay, F., Ricard, S., Snoeck, D., Perron, T., Mareschal, L., Laclau, J., Gohet, E. and Malagoli, P. 2019. Nutrient management of immature rubber plantations. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 39: 11.
Werner, C., Zheng, X., Tang, J., Xie, B., Liu, C. and Kiese, R. 2006. N2O, CH4 and CO2 emissions from seasonal tropical rainforests and a rubber plantation in Southwest China. Plant and Soil 289: 335-353.
Wintgens, J.N. 2004. The coffee plant. In Coffee: growing, processing, sustainable production (eds. Jean Nicolas, W), pp. 3-24. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
Wycherley, P.R. 1992. The genus Hevea – botanical aspects. In Natural Rubber: Biology, Cultivation and Technology (eds. M.R. Sethuraj and N.M Mathew), pp. 200-238. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Xu, J., Grumbine, R.E. and Beckshafer, P. 2014. Landscape transformation through the use of ecological and socioeconomic indicators in Xishuangbanna, Southwest China, Mekong Region. Ecology Indicators 36: 749-756.
Zaw, Z.N., Sdoodee, S. and Lacote, R. 2017. Performances of low frequency rubber tapping system with raingaurd in high rainfall area in Myanmar. Australian Journal of Crop Sciences 11: 1451-1456.
Zaw, Z.N., Chiarawipa, R., Pechkeo, S. and Saelim, S. 2022. Complementarity in rubber-salacca intercropping system under integrated fertilization mixed with organic soil amendments. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science 45: 153-170.
Zaw, Z.N., Musigapong, P., Chiarawipa, R., Pechkeo, Surachart., and Chantanaorrapint, A. 2023. Acclimatization of tropical palm species associated with leaf morpho-physiological traits to the understorey environment of Hevea rubber farms. Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science 46: 107-128.
Zhang, M., Yang, X.D. and Du, J. 2007. Soil organic carbon in pure rubber and tea-rubber plantations in South-western China. Tropical Ecology 48: 201-207.
Zhou, S. 2000. Landscape changes in rural area in China. Landscape Urban Plan 47: 33-38.
Ziegler, A.D., Fox, J.M. and Jianchu, X. 2009. The rubber juggernaut. Science 324: 1024-1025.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
