Rubber plantation performance in the Northeast and East of Thailand in relation to environmental conditions

Laura Rantala

A thesis submitted for an M.Sc degree in Forest Ecology

Department of Forest Ecology/ Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI) University of Helsinki Finland 2006

PREFACE This M.Sc thesis was done under the framework of a project Improving the productivity of rubber smallholdings through rubber agroforestry systems in Indonesia and Thailand. The project is being financed by the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC). It is coordinated by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), and research partners include the Indonesian Rubber Research Institute, Kasetsart University (KU) and Prince of Songkhla University in Thailand, and the University of Helsinki (UH). I received funding from the UH for travel expenses to Thailand and for participation in a bilateral exchange programme between the universities of Kasetsart and Helsinki. My initial knowledge of rubber cultivation and the tropical environment was limited to say the least. I am grateful to everyone involved in this work for the time they have generously given for guiding me through the various stages of this work. Firstly I wish to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor, Dr. Olavi Luukkanen (UH), Director of the Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI), for making my participation in this project possible. I am grateful for his supervision, valuable comments and interest in my work. During my field work in Thailand, I received much academic as well as practical help from Associate Professor, Dr. Suree Bhumibhamon and Dr. Damrong Pipatwattanakul (KU). Without their support my work in Thailand would not have been possible. I am indebted to Dr. Vesa Kaarakka (UH) for his help during various stages of my work and especially for thoughtful comments on my manuscript. In Thailand, I had the privilege to receive help from many people. I want to mention the staff members of the Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund in Bangkok, Nong Khai and Buriram, who kindly assisted me in finding suitable sites for field study. I am grateful to Mr. Arak Chantuma and Mrs. Pisamai Chantuma from Chachoengsao Rubber Research Centre for providing me with the necessary facilities and assistance with the arrangements for my field work. I want to thank Mr. and Mrs. Chorruk, Mr. and Mrs. Choochit and Mrs. Sompong Puksa in Ban Kruen, Buriram, Mrs. Boonhouse Nanoy, Mr. Prasittiporn Sankarn and Mr. and Mrs. Arlapol in Pak Khat, Nong Khai and Mrs. Pa Noom Thurtong in Lad Krating for information, hospitality and for letting me conduct field inventories in their rubber plantations. My field work would have not been possible without the help of Mr. Prin Kalasee, Mr. Jakrapong Puakla, Ms. Waranuch Chansuri, Ms. Supanee Nakplang and Ms. Pantaree Kongsat. I want to thank Mr. Chakrit Na Takuathung for helping me in finding literature from Thailand once I had already returned to Finland. Finally I want to thank all those who helped me and were very friendly to me making my short stay in KU and in Thailand an unforgettable one. I want to thank Professor, Dr. Jouko Laasasenaho and Timo Melkas for helping me with calculating wood volume estimates for trees, and Riika Kilpikari for helping me with statistics. Thanks are also due to Dr. Mohamed El Fadl for help in data search and comments as well as to other VITRI staff and students for their comments. Last but not least I want to thank my family and friends for their support. Dublin, November 2006 Laura Rantala This study was financed by the Common Fund for Commodities, an intergovernmental financial institution established within the framework of the United Nations, headquartered in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Background of the study ....................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Scope and objective of the study......................................................................................... 10 2. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Botany and distribution of Hevea brasiliensis ..................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Distribution of Hevea brasiliensis in Thailand............................................................. 12 2.2 Climatic requirements of the rubber tree ............................................................................. 14 2.3 Soil requirements of the rubber tree .................................................................................... 17 2.4 Rubber cultivation in Southeast Asia ................................................................................ 18 2.4.1 General characteristics................................................................................................. 18 2.4.2 Agroforestry practices ................................................................................................. 19 2.4.3 Environmental considerations...................................................................................... 21 2.5 Uses of Hevea brasiliensis .................................................................................................. 22 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS FOR FIELD STUDY............................................................... 23 3.1. Material ............................................................................................................................. 23 3.1.1 Field work and study areas .......................................................................................... 23 3.1.2 Plantation inventory .................................................................................................... 27 3.1.3 Interviews and field observations................................................................................. 28 3.1.4 Climatic conditions and soil types ............................................................................... 28 3.2 Methods ............................................................................................................................. 31 3.2.1 Estimation of wood volume and biomass..................................................................... 31 3.2.2 Mann-Whitney's U-test................................................................................................ 33 4. RESULTS................................................................................................................................. 34 4.1 Plantation performance ...................................................................................................... 34 4.1.1 Height and crown structure.......................................................................................... 34 4.1.2 Wood volume and biomass ......................................................................................... 37 4.2 Farming systems ................................................................................................................. 44 4.2.1 General characteristics................................................................................................. 44 4.2.2 Agroforestry practices and land use history ................................................................. 45 5. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................... 46 5.1 Variation in wood production potential between clones and study areas.............................. 46 5.2 Agroforestry practices in northeastern Thailand .................................................................. 49 5.3 Wood production potential in the Northeast and East compared to the South ...................... 50 5.4 Critical assessment of the study .......................................................................................... 54 5.4.1 Aims achieved............................................................................................................. 54 5.4.2 Limitations of the study............................................................................................... 55 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................... 57 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 59

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

BPM 2 4 BB19 BR10 BR16 BR03 CB16 CB08 CR16 CR06 CR03 CRRC DBH DOA FAO GIS GPS LDD NB16 NB07 NR16 NR08 NR03 ORRA RFD RIS RRIM 600 RRIT TMD

Bank Pertanian Malaysia's rubber clone number 24 10-year old RRIM 600 stand in Buriram, 1438'50 N, 10312'72 E 16-year old RRIM 600 stand in Buriram, 1438'56 N, 10312'79 E 16-year old RRIM 600 stand in Buriram, 1438'56 N, 10312'79 E 3-year old RRIM 600 stand in Buriram, 1438'65 N, 10313'47 E 16-year old BPM 24 stand in Chachoengsao, 135' N, 1015' E 8-year old BPM 24 stand in Chachoengsao, 135' N, 1015' E 16-year old RRIM 600 stand in Chachoengsao, 135' N, 1015' E 6-year old RRIM 600 stand in Chachoengsao, 135' N, 1015' E 3-year old RRIM 600 stand in Chachoengsao, 1359'41 N, 10143'81 E Chachoengsao Rubber Research Center (of the Rubber Research Institute of Thailand) Tree diameter at breast height (1.3 m) Department of Agriculture of Thailand Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Geographic Information System Global Positioning System Land Development Department of Thailand 16-year old BPM 24 stand in Nong Khai, 1837'11 N, 10335'59 E 7-year old BPM 24 stand in Nong Khai, 1836'09 N, 10335'68 E 16-year old RRIM 600 stand in Nong Khai, 1837'36 N, 10335'60 E 8-year old RRIM 600 stand in Nong Khai, 1836'09 N, 10335'68 E 3-year old BPM 24 stand in Nong Khai, 1837'07 N, 10335'15 E The Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund Royal Forest Department of Thailand Rubber Information System developed by the Department of Agriculture of Thailand Rubber Research Institute Malaysia's rubber clone number 600 Rubber Research Institute of Thailand Thai Meteorological Department

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

The rubber tree, Hevea brasiliensis (Muell.) Arg., is a major crop for smallholders in Thailand and an important commercial crop everywhere in Southeast Asia. It is grown for latex production, while rubber wood is considered as a secondary product. Therefore rubber is regarded as an agricultural crop. However, recent improvements in wood technology have led to rubber tree becoming increasingly important as a source of wood products (Evans and Turnbull 2004). Rubber wood has enjoyed an environmentally friendly reputation as a raw material, because it is a by-product of latex production, and when grown in renewable plantations, it can substitute timber from natural forests.

The natural range of Hevea, of the family Euphorbiaceae, covers the Amazon river basin and parts of the nearby uplands. Within the genus, Hevea brasiliensis (also known as para rubber) is one of the most widely distributed species. It grows in an area South of the Amazon river, extending towards the west in Peru and the south to Bolivia and Brazil (Wycherley 1992).

The rubber tree has always been known for its latex, which was used by the ancient civilizations of Central and South America. The commercial and large-scale exploitation of the tree did not begin until in the last quarter of the 19th century. With the arrival of cars, discovery of the pneumatic tyre and following increase in rubber prices, the produced amount of plantation-originated rubber was soon larger than that of wild rubber. At the same time, there were strong geo-political pressures to move the rubber production away from South America (Jones and Allen 1992). While searching for a cash crop for its eastern colonies, the British identified rubber as a potential crop for planting in Southeast Asia (Hong 1999).

Rubber was first introduced in Asia in 1876, when seeds were first shipped from the Amazonas to the United Kingdom and further to Ceylon and planted there. In the following year, rubber trees were planted in Singapore and Malaya (Hong 1999). Although rubber was first an estate crop, local individual farmers soon adopted the crop and so they were drawn into the world commercial economy (Courtenay 1979). Nowadays rubber is cultivated worldwide in most parts of the lowland humid tropics, but the production is heavily 5

concentrated into Asia, where over 90 % of the worlds natural rubber is being produced.

Rubber seeds were first brought to Thailand from Malaya in 1900 and planted in Trang province in southern Thailand (RFD 2000). Estate agriculture was for political reasons discouraged in Thailand, unlike in Malaya, in the beginning of the 20th century. Rubber growing became important as a smallholder crop, when local farmers responded to the improved rubber prices in mid-1920s and planted rubber in southern Thailand (Courtenay 1979). Favourable climatic conditions, free land areas and easy railway access enabled the adoption of rubber growing in the South (Pendleton 1962). Small areas were planted elsewhere, mainly in Chantaburi province, where rubber seeds and seedlings from Malaya were first taken in 1908. Later the cultivation extended to some other eastern provinces (RFD 2000).

Peninsular Malaysia has been the world's most important rubber cultivation area, and the present wealth of this area was largely based on production of natural rubber (Collins et al. 1991). In the year 2005, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia produced 33 %, 23 % and 13 % of the worlds natural rubber, respectively (FAO 2006). Lately, the rubber plantation area has been decreasing in Malaysia, but in Thailand the trend has been reverse and plantations have started to spread to new areas in the East and Northeast of Thailand 1. This area has been referred to as non-traditional for rubber cultivation (Chantuma et al. 2005). Today Thailand has the second largest area of rubber plantations in the world following Indonesia, is the world's largest producer of natural rubber (FAO 2006) and also the world leader in rubber wood production and export (LDD 2005a).

The rubber plantation area in Thailand is much larger than the area of forest plantations in the country. According to FAO (2005), the total area of rubber plantations in Thailand was 1 680 000 ha in 2005. According to the statistics of the Rubber Research Institute of Thailand (RRIT 1996 cited in RFD 2000), the rubber plantation area was larger already in the year 2000, when it was recorded as 1 959 000 ha. In comparison, the area of forest plantations in

Thailand in the year 2000 was 355 000 hectares. The area of natural forest in the same year was 16 486 500 hectares (RFD 2001).
1 In this study, areas of Thailand are referred to as South, Central, East, Northeast and North. A map of Thailand and names of provinces in these areas is in Appendix 1.

Rubber has been referred to as a woody agricultural crop (FAO 2005) together with the oil palm and coconut. In Thailand, the rubber plantation area is larger than the plantation area of these two crops. In the year 2005, the plantation areas of rubber, oil palm and coconut were 1 680 000 ha, 315 000 ha and 343 000 ha, respectively (FAO 2006). The plantation areas of both oil palm and rubber have been growing. Oil palm is cultivated in the South of Thailand, which is also the traditional area for rubber cultivation. Competition for land area from other crop species has been identified as one factor driving the establishment of rubber in new areas.

In Thailand the smallholder rubber is intensively supported by the Royal Thai Government, in forms of technology and production inputs such as seedlings, land preparation and fertilizer (Joshi 2005). In recent years the Thai Government has been promoting rubber planting also in new areas. In the year 2004, the goal was to extend the planted area, with a target of one million rai (160 000 hectares) extension within two years from 2004 to 2006 (RRIT 2005). The establishment of new rubber plantations has been promoted especially in the North and Northeast of Thailand. The estimated extension of rubber cultivation area is 400 000 hectares by the year 2010 (RRIT 2005).

In contrast to Malaysia, where rubber is mainly grown on large estates, in Thailand 90 % of rubber is grown in family-owned smallholdings 2 less than eight hectares in size, the average area of a plantation being only two hectares (Pratummintra 2005). Rubber yields per hectare in Thailand are the highest of the three leading rubber-producing countries. This is due to governmental support for smallholder rubber cultivation, and especially to the use of improved planting material. Of the three leading rubber producers, the yield per hectare is lowest in Indonesia, where rubber has traditionally been grown in jungle rubber agroforestry systems. In these systems, the low yields have been reported to result from a low level of maintenance and use of non-improved planting material (Wibawa et al. 2005). Therefore, improving the productivity of rubber agroforestry has much potential especially in 2 In this study, the term smallholding is used to refer to family-owned small rubber plantations. The Department
of Agriculture (DOA) of Thailand has classified smallholdings, medium-sized holdings and estates as those where rubber area is less than 8 hectares, 8-40 hectares and more than 40 hectares, respectively (Pratummintra 2005). According to Courtenay (1979), the smallholding is usually family-owned, managed by the family head and worked by family labour. The plantation in turn is frequently owned by a company or a government enterprise, and usually professionally managed (Courtenay 1979). In this study, the term plantation is, however, used to refer to any organized planting regardless of size and management.

Indonesia. In Thailands case, a potential for increased production could lie in the establishment of rubber in new areas. Therefore research on the performance of rubber in these new areas is needed.

Rubber grows best in a climate similar to that in its area of origin in the Amazonas, where the rainfall is heavy and there is no dry season (Rao and Vijayakumar 1992). In northeastern Thailand, the annual rainfall is less than optimal for rubber and the dry season lasts for approximately six months. In this climate, smaller wood volumes per hectare have been reported in comparison with plantations in the traditional cultivation area (Chantuma et al. 2005). So far, comparative studies on the effect of climatic conditions to wood volume per hectare and to individual volumes of trees in relation to plantation age have not been done. In order to contribute to improving the productivity of rubber cultivation in Thailand, this kind of information is needed.

It has been presented that unfavourable environmental conditions would more drastically affect the latex yield than the timber production of rubber (Grist et al. 1998). In areas where rubber cultivation is less favored by environmental conditions, improved farming systems such as agroforestry could be an option for increasing the economical profitability as well as environmental and social benefits of rubber cultivation.

Rubber plantations are usually established using vegetatively propagated and often improved planting material. Clones perform differently in response to stress from external factors such as drought (Rao and Vijayakumar 1992). The performance and wood production potential of different clones in the non-traditional cultivation area (North and Northeast) in Thailand has not yet been studied. The results from such studies would be useful in determining which clones would be best suited for marginal planting areas.

Although latex is still the main product of rubber cultivation, wood selling can increase the total productivity and enable reaching a maximum productivity of the rubber plantation earlier. This is possible because wood selling can shorten the latex tapping period, after which trees can be either felled or used for further tapping depending on the current prices of latex and wood (Arshad et al. 1997; Clment-Demange 2004).

The wood production potential of rubber at a given site depends mainly on clone, planting 8

density and tapping practices. In the case of clones, their architecture, most importantly the branching pattern, is a critical characteristic. Breeding of more suitable clones could lead to better rubber wood productivity and increased income in the long term, but meanwhile clonal recommendations can already be given (Clment-Demange 2004). The RRIT has already grouped rubber clones into three classes according to their latex, timber and joint production potential. Clonal recommendations for the non-traditional area in Thailand could be very useful in order to determine which clones can be best adapted to a marginal cultivation environment.

Plantation forestry and estate crops are controversial issues due to their reported negative social and environmental impacts. Indeed, rubber plantation establishment has had some direct negative environmental consequences in Thailand in the past. The logging ban of all forests, which was declared in Thailand in 1989, was adopted following environmental degradation caused by logging and rubber plantation development on forest land (Collins et al. 1991). After the ban, Thailand's timber has had to be taken from forest and rubber plantations. This has been one of the main factors driving the increasing utilisation of rubber wood for industrial purposes.

Rubber has been and still is an important commercial crop in Thailand and Southeast Asia. In Thailands case, income from rubber cultivation is especially important for rubber smallholders. According to RRIT (2005), there are over one million rubber smallholders in the country. The demand for natural rubber has been predicted to rise from 8.4 million tonnes in the year 2004 to 11.9 million tonnes in the year 2010 (Joshi 2005). As the demand for rubber wood products remains high as well, it is important to ensure a sustainable and sufficient future supply of rubber products while improving the productivity of farming systems in order to contribute to ensuring good income for rubber smallholders in Thailand.

This report studied the performance and wood production potential of two rubber clones in northeastern Thailand. The study was conducted under the framework of a Common Fund for Commodities (CFC)- funded project Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smallholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems. This project was coordinated by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), and partners included the Indonesian Rubber Research Institute, Prince of Songkhla University and Kasetsart University in Thailand, and the University of Helsinki. This study was also a joint undertaking in the long series of academic 9

collaboration between the universities of Kasetsart and Helsinki.

1.2 Scope and objective of the study

The present study was carried out in Thailand in order to investigate the performance and wood production potential of two rubber clones, namely RRIM 600 and BPM 24, in three areas under different climatic conditions in northeastern and eastern Thailand. The wood production potential was assessed through estimating the wood volume of individual trees and plantations per hectare. As this study focused on the forestry-related uses of rubber, latex yields were not measured. However when assessing the general profitability of rubber, the latex yield component is currently the most significant factor in determining the viability of rubber cultivation.

The general objective of this study was to investigate, using literature review and field data collection, the wood production potential of two rubber clones in northeastern and eastern Thailand in relation to environmental conditions and to study the characteristics of rubber farming systems in northeastern Thailand.

The specific objectives of this study were: 1) To investigate the wood production potential (wood volume and clear bole volume as related to plantation age) of rubber clones in relation to geographical area and climatic conditions. 2) To compare the wood production potential of rubber clones in different geographical areas. 3) To preliminarily investigate the effects of site characteristics, especially the previous landuse history, on the performance of rubber. 4) To preliminarily identify and study components of agroforestry systems used at rubber plantations.

10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Botany and distribution of Hevea brasiliensis

Hevea brasiliensis is a tropical, deciduous tree, which grows 25-30 meters tall in its natural distribution area. Most of the planted trees are smaller, because they have been bred for the production of latex without taking much into account their wood production potential (Hong 1999). The bole of the rubber tree is usually straight but quickly tapered, and heavy branching is common. The branching pattern is very variable, and the leading stem can be dominant or soon divided into several heavy branches. The tree is easily damaged by strong winds (Lemmens et al. 1995). Clonal variation in wind-resistance has been observed, depending on types of branching (Cilas et al. 2004). Rubber tree matures at the age of seven to ten years, after which latex tapping can be started. When aiming at economic latex production, the life cycle of a rubber plantation is 30-35 years, after which replanting is necessary.

The current world-wide distribution of rubber plantations is presented in Figure 1. Apart from Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia, also India, Vietnam, China, Nigeria, Liberia, Sri Lanka and Brazil, in descending order, have large areas (over 100 000 ha) of rubber plantations (FAO 2006). In Table 1, the development in planted area and production of natural rubber in the three leading rubber-producing countries is compared.

11

Rubber plantation area, million ha and percentage of world total in 2004

13; 0 % 154; 2 % 649; 8 % 2675; 32 % 1740; 21 %

Indonesia Thailand Malaysia Rest of Asia Africa South America Others

1400; 17 %

1676; 20 %

Figure 1. Rubber plantation area in the world in thousand hectares, and percentage of the total planted area in the world in the year 2004. FAO 2006

Table 1. Rubber plantation area in 1000 hectares and the average production of natural rubber in kilograms per hectare per year (kg -1 ha -1a-1) between years 1985-2005 in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (FAO 2006).
Country Indonesia Thailand Malaysia 1985 Area 1 692 1 411 1 535 Prod. 624 548 957 1990 Area 1 865 1 400 1 645 Prod. 684 1 013 800 1995 Area 2 261 1 496 1 475 Prod. 6 78 1 378 738 2000 Area 2 400 1 524 1 300 Prod. 671 1 560 714 2005 Area 2 675 1 680 1 400 Prod. 796 1 798 839

2.1.1 Distribution of Hevea brasiliensis in Thailand

In 1996, the fourth survey on Thailands rubber plantation area was carried out by the RRIT using Landsat satellite images. According to this survey, the total plantation area was 1 959 285 ha, of which 45 420 ha (2.3 %) were in the Northeast and North of Thailand. The eastern provinces including Chachoengsao accounted for 12.3 % of the plantation area (RRIT 1996 cited in RFD 2000). According to Chantuma (2005), presently 5 % of the plantations are in northeastern and 10 % in eastern Thailand. The Thai Government has targeted enlarging the area of rubber plantation by 48 000 hectares in the North and 112 000 ha in the Northeast of Thailand (Chantuma et al. 2005).

12

In terms of latex production, suitable rubber growing areas can be found also in the nontraditional cultivation area in northeastern and northern Thailand. The Department of Agriculture of Thailand has created a rubber information system (RIS), where climatic and soil profile data are stored in a regional geographic information system (GIS) database. A model for maximum latex production potential that was validated by using existing latex yield data from the eastern provinces was used to evaluate and map the production potential in the North and Northeast of Thailand.

Three rubber yield classes were determined. In class L1 the production potential is over 2500 kg per hectare per year (kg -1ha-1a-1). According to the RIS, this class was not found in the North and Northeast, only in the South of Thailand. The second best class, L2, where the production potential was estimated at 1500-2500 kg-1 ha-1a-1 was found in an area of about 320 000 hectares in the Northeast and 160 000 hectares in the North of Thailand. The third class, L3, where production is lower than 1500 kg -1ha-1a-1 and trees can not yet be exploited after seven years from plantation establishment, was not regarded as a suitable area (Pratummintra 2005).

13

Figure 2. The area of rubber plantations in Thailand in the year 2000 according to RFD 2000, and the share of the total area in different regions in 2005 (Chantuma 2005).

2.2 Climatic requirements of the rubber tree

The rubber tree is native to the evergreen tropical rainforests usually occurring within the 5 latitude of the equator. The climate of this region is characterized by heavy rainfall and no distinct dry season. According to Rao and Vijayakumar (1992), the optimal climatic conditions for the genus Hevea are: A rainfall of 2000 mm or more, evenly distributed throughout the year with no severe dry season and with 125-150 annual rainy days, A maximum temperature of about 29-34 C, minimum of about 20 C and a monthly mean of 25-28 C, High atmospheric humidity of about 80 % with moderate wind, and Bright sunshine for about 2000 hours in a year, at the rate of six hours a day in all months.

14

In traditional rubber growing areas, the total rainfall ranges between 2000-4000 mm, distributed over 140-220 days, without more than one to four dry months (Rao and Vijayakumar 1992). Rubber can successfully be cultivated under these kinds of humid lowland tropical conditions, roughly between 15N and 10S (Lemmens et al. 1995). Cultivation of the tree has however expanded away from the equator to latitudes as far North as 29N in India, Myanmar and China, and down to 23S in Brazil. In Thailand, rubber has traditionally been cultivated on the Malay Peninsula from 6-12N and in areas with an average rainfall of around 2000 mm per year (Watson 1989). Cultivation in the East and Northeast of Thailand (up to 18N) has mainly started during the last two decades.

It is justified to make a distinction between the conditions that permit the survival of rubber and those that assure best growth and yield (Compagnon 1987) and a cultivation which is economically viable. A general lower limit of annual rainfall for the economically viable cultivation of rubber can not be easily given, since environmental factors other than climate also affect the survival of the tree (Compagnon 1987). A well-distributed annual rainfall of 1500 mm has sometimes been considered as a lower limit for commercial production (Lemmens et al. 1995). However, the requirement depends on the distribution of rain throughout the year, length of dry season and soil water retention capacity. In favorable soils, rubber could tolerate a dry season of four to five months, during which less than 100 mm of rain is received and within this period, two to three months with rainfall less than 50 mm (Compagnon 1987).

Plants encountering high temperature in the absence of rainfall are driven to higher rate of transpiration which in turn leads to moisture stress. Effects of rainfall and temperature on the photosynthetic rate (Sangsing 2004) and further the growth performance (Jiang 1988) and the latex yield (Jiang 1988; Rao et al. 1990; Rao et al. 1996; Raj et al. 2005) of rubber trees have been derived. In general, moisture stress has resulted in decreasing latex yields as well as decreasing total production of dry matter. According to Grist et al. (1998), the growth and latex yield of a tree are affected in different ways by soil moisture. Moisture stress has more dramatic effects on the latex yield than on tree growth, as turgor pressure in latex vessels inside the trunk of the tree is required to facilitate the latex flow.

Clonal differences in photosynthetic rates (Nataraja and Jacob 1998; Sangsing 2004) and tolerance to moisture stress (Rao et al. 1990; Chandrashekar et al. 1998; Raj et al. 2005) have 15

been observed. Priyadarshan et al. (2005) studied the yield potential of several rubber clones in marginal environments suffering from severe winds, low temperatures and high evaporation in northeastern India. Clone RRIM 600 (Rubber Research Institute Malaysia, clone number 600) appeared to be able to adapt well to various conditions, and produced moderate yield in all marginal environments mentioned (Priyadarshan et al. 2005).

Chantuma et al. (2005) studied the wood production potential of clone RRIM 600 in the nontraditional rubber cultivation area of northeastern Thailand. In Nong Khai province, the survival percentage in a 15-year old plantation was 90 and the wood volume was 138 m3 ha-1. In Chachoengsao province, at a plantation aged 19, the survival was 79 % and wood volume 188 m3ha-1. Authors compared these results with figures from the traditional cultivation area in Phuket and Surat Thani in southern Thailand, where plantations were 25 years old. Survival was 78 % and 83 % and wood volume 256 and 300 m3ha-1, respectively (Chantuma et al. 2005). Wood volume was assessed based on tree girth. According to this study it seemed that rubber wood productivity in the non-traditional area could be almost comparable to that in the South of Thailand. However, it would be interesting to include several plantations in consideration, also in the drought area of the Northeast, as well as to compare the performance of different clones. It seems that the growth performance could be restricted in the drought area, where trees encounter water stress especially during the hot and dry season.

The optimum day temperature for rubber is 26-28 C. Night-time temperature drops to 10 C in Laos and Cambodia have not caused problems, but preferably the minimum temperature should not drop below 14-15 C (Compagnon 1987). During periods of low temperature, slowing down of growth has been observed in China and in Northeast India. In China, where rubber-growing areas lie between 18 and 24N, the growth rate has been reported to slow down drastically during the winter (Rao and Vijayakumar 1992). Cold damage, including the death of shoots and a decreasing latex flow, has occurred when trees encounter hot and cold conditions within one day and night temperature fall quickly to less than 5 C and day temperature rising to 15-20 C (Watson 1989). Apart from latex flow and growth rate, cold conditions have been reported to affect the survival during wintering and outbreak or suppression of diseases (Jiang 1988). Different clones appear to vary greatly in their cold resistance (Watson 1989).

16

Rubber trees shed their leaves annually, but the timing and intensity of leaf-shedding depends on climatic condition and varies between clones (Lemmens et al. 1995). In eastern and northeastern Thailand rubber trees shed their leaves in December, and start to grow new leaves in January and February. Trees in the South drop their leaves approximately two months later and start to produce new leaves in March and April (RFD 2000).

2.3 Soil requirements of the rubber tree

Rubber can grow on many soils, the best options being well drained (Lemmens et al. 1995) clayey and deep clay soils (Growing multipurpose 1994), but it can withstand physical conditions ranging from stiff clay with poor drainage to well drained sandy loam. Soil water retention capacity, depth and soil moisture are important factors determining the suitability of a growing site. Ground covering plants can help improving the soil physical properties (Krishnakumar and Potty 1992). An optimal soil pH value for rubber is at 5-6 (Lemmens et al. 1995). The performance of the tree can be restricted where there is rocky surface, heavy drainage or soil pH values above 6.5 or below 4 (Krishnakumar and Potty 1992).

In Thailand, rubber trees can be grown in many areas that are unsuitable for other commonly cultivated cash crops. Rubber requires a modest level of soil nutrients when compared to coffee, tea, coconut and oil palm. Some fertilizer is however advantageous and can be needed to replace nutrients lost (RFD 2000).

The Land Development Department of Thailand (LDD) has carried out research in eastern Thailand in order to identify soil types suitable for rubber planting in the East. According to the study, soil properties essential for rubber are soil depth of at least one meter and moderate fertility. Shallow soil, heavy stone layer at or above 50 centimeters from soil surface and low level of fertility were regarded as unsuitable conditions for rubber cultivation. Suitable soil series were found to cover 9 200 hectares in eastern Thailand (LDD 2005a).

17

2.4 Rubber cultivation in Southeast Asia

2.4.1 General characteristics

Because rubber has traditionally been classified as an agricultural crop, rubber plantations are considered as agricultural land and not as forest plantation. However, the rubber tree is the most widely planted tree species in Southeast Asia (FAO 2005). The characteristics of rubber farming systems vary within Southeast Asia. In the beginning of the 20th century, estate planting was encouraged in Malaya, while in Thailand and the Netherlands Indies rubber became an important crop for smallholders (Courtenay 1979). Still at present in Peninsular Malaysia rubber is grown on smallholdings and estate plantations, the latter being characteristic to Malaysia while the smallholder rubber is dominant in Thailand. The plantations are for the most part 'monoculture', i.e. consisting of a single crop. In Indonesia the practice is different- rubber is mainly cultivated in extensive and often complex 3 agroforestry systems, referred to as jungle rubber. In these systems rubber is the main crop cultivated, but it is grown together with timber species, fruit trees, rattan or medicinal plants (Wibawa 2005).

Incentives for improving the productivity of rubber cultivation can sometimes be limited. In Indonesia, where the productivity of natural rubber per hectare is low, yield could be improved by increasing the number of trees per hectare, and by planting better yielding rubber varieties. However, expected land scarcity caused by outside land claims provides incentives for securing future land rights by forest clearing and rubber planting, and not so much for intensification of existing farming systems (Angelsen 1995).

Neither in Thailand is the land tenure secure in all cases. Private land ownership is recognized step by step, from registration of land use to full ownership. The registration of land occupancy is at present the only form of land security for millions of people, and although

3 The complex rubber agroforestry system includes a variety of plants, trees as well as treelets (banana, cocoa, coffee), lianas and herbs which are all associated. The structure and functioning of these systems has been reported to be close to that of a natural forest. A simple agroforestry system in turn consists of a smaller number of plants, usually no more than five tree species and annual species (paddy or upland rice, maize, vegetables, herbs) or treelets (Gouyon 2003).

18

these people are commonly regarded as owners of the land, a formal ownership is still missing (Luukkanen 2001).

Government agencies supporting rubber planting in Thailand are the Rubber Research Institute of Thailand (RRIT) and the Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (ORRAF). The RRIT works under the Department of Agriculture (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives), and its responsibilities include rubber development plans, research, technology transfer and control of natural rubber production, trade, exports and imports (RRIT 2005). ORRAF is also attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and it is a non-profit enterprise carrying out governmental policies. ORRAF's objective is to work with rubber farmers on rubber production, processing and marketing through providing improved varieties of rubber seedlings, aiding in the establishment of both new plantations and replantings and providing technology and guidance (Chaninthornsongkhla 2005).

In Thailand, rubber seedlings are usually produced by bud grafting on rootstock in nurseries. Rubber seeds from high-yielding parents are first grown from four to eight months, until stems reach a desired diameter at about 10 cm above ground, after which a grafting from a desired clone is attached. Budwood clones are grown in specific bud-root gardens. The RRIT has developed a certifying system in order to take care of the quality of planting material produced at nurseries.

2.4.2 Agroforestry practices

Diversification of income through introducing food crops, timber trees or livestock in rubber farming systems is a common practice in Southeast Asia. In Thailand, simple agroforestry practices such as intercropping and integration of fruit trees have been adopted at smallholdings in order to diversify sources of income. These practices have however not yet been formally recommended nor well documented (Joshi 2005). The RRIT has carried out research on various intercropping systems, and according to these studies, intercrops that could successfully be grown with rubber in Thailand are banana, papaya, pineapple and upland rice (RRIT 2005). Cherdchom et al. (2002) reported four main integrated rubber farming systems in the South of Thailand emerging during the financial crisis in the late

19

1990's. The major systems included 1) Rubber intercrop farming, 2) Rubber-rice farming, 3) Rubber-fruit tree farming, and 4) Rubber-livestock farming.

According to Joshi (2005), diversification of income sources through rubber agroforestry systems could become more crucial in the non-traditional cultivation area, where rainfall is low and other conditions less favorable for rubber, than in the South of Thailand. The LDD has already recommended planting of food crops with rubber in eastern Thailand. Fruit trees such as durian, mangosteen and rambutan were also recommended in order to diversify sources of income (LDD 2005a).

When rubber trees are planted in widely used "standard" plantation pattern of 3 m x 7 m or 8 m, intercropping is generally possible only during the first years of rotation, before rubber canopies close and do not allow the growth of light-demanding crops. A study by Rodrigo et al. (2005) in Malaysia investigated the possibility to improve the productivity of rubber agroforestry by altering planting patterns. Considering overall performance of long-term intercropping, a double rubber row system with intercrops was identified as the best option (Rodrigo et al. 2005). Wibawa et al. (2005) have also received encouraging results in longterm intercropping using a rubber spacing of 6 m x 2 m x 14 m.

Another study by Rodrigo et al. (2004) demonstrates that apart from its overall economic benefits, agroforestry can be beneficial to the growth of rubber trees. Intensive intercropping of young rubber with banana may result in an increase in growth and yield of rubber trees, and to a reduction in the length of the unproductive immature phase of rubber. Intercropping had a positive effect on the growth of rubber throughout the six years of the study, with the result that trees grown with intercrop were ready for tapping four months earlier than those growing on their own (Rodrigo et al. 2004).

In Malaysia rubber has generally been planted as monocrop, but to increase productivity, some farmers cultivate short term crops such as vegetables, corn, pineapple, groundnut and banana between rubber rows during the first two and a half to three years of rotation. An improved intercropping system has been developed in order to sustain the productivity of intercropping over a longer period of time. In this system rubber is planted in one, double or triple rows and the interhedges are planted with forest or fruit trees. 20

To assess the financial viability of rubber plantation with integrated forest trees, an economical analysis was carried out comparing rubber agroforestry systems with integrated timber trees to traditional monoculture plantations in terms of income in both smallholdings and large estates. For the smallholdings, projected income from integrated timber species seemed attractive. Hedge planting with rubber and teak (Tectona grandis) or sentang (Azadirachta excelsa) was identified an option for consideration. Sentang or teak could provide a bonus income at harvest while latex collection provides continuous supply of cash before harvesting (Arshad et al. 1997).

In Indonesia, over 70 % of the total rubber area is jungle rubber agroforestry. A jungle rubber cultivation system is usually established after slash-and-burn of secondary forest or old rubber area. Complex rubber agroforests have been observed to preserve many functions of a natural forest and therefore they could provide many environmental services: maintaining biodiversity, retaining soil water captivation capacity and sequestering carbon from the atmosphere (Joshi et al. 2002). However, complex agroforests are competing for land with more intensive land use options. When incentives for retaining the traditional agroforestry systems are not available, farmers often choose land use forms that provide fewer environmental services. Efficient compensation such as a reward practice could help preserve and promote complex agroforestry systems and the environmental services they provide (Joshi et al. 2002).

The production of latex in jungle rubber agfororestry is very low- only about a third of that in intensive monocultures. Improved rubber agroforestry systems have been succesfully developed, studied and promoted in Indonesia in order to improve the productivity of rubber cultivation. According to Xavier (2004), promising results on integrating plantation tree species grown for timber in rubber agroforests have been observed in Indonesia.

2.4.3 Environmental considerations

Most of the original forest cover in Southeast Asia has been cleared for agriculture, including rubber cultivation. In recent times the expansion of rubber growing into primary forest has been most common in Indonesia, as a result of population growth, insecurity of land rights,

21

land scarcity and rising rubber prices (Angelsen 1995). Obviously, intensive rubber cultivation can not be comparable to natural forest in terms of biodiversity, and rubber cultivation should therefore not extend to areas covered with natural forest. In the case of jungle rubber, as pointed out before, the complex agroforest could, however, perform many ecological functions, and when comparing rubber cultivation with other land use alternatives, the change from traditional shifting rice cultivation to smallholder rubber has been reported to have various positive ecological effects in Indonesia (Angelsen 1995).

According to Balsiger et al. (2000), the role of rubber tree as a carbon sink has often been under-estimated. Apparently due to its high leaf area index and the extra energy the tree requires to produce latex, it acts as an effective carbon sink.

Intensive rubber growing areas can become vulnerable to soil nutrient loss and erosion that result from ground preparation and clear-cutting. Growing rubber together with agricultural crops could be the best way to decrease these environmental impacts. On steep slopes, terracing has been recommended to prevent erosion (Royal Forest Department 2000). The Land Development Department (LDD 2005a) has recommended planting of vetiver grass in hilly areas for erosion control. While latex harvesting is practiced, fertilizer may be required to replace nutrients lost (RFD 2000).

2.5 Uses of Hevea brasiliensis

The most important product of Hevea brasiliensis is the latex produced in the bark of the tree and made into natural rubber. Rubber wood is generally considered as a by-product, and its commercial value was almost non-existent until about 25 years ago. The wood was mainly used as fuelwood and for charcoal making. The large supply and easy availability of rubber wood were not attractive enough to the wood processing industries in the past. Lately, the decreasing area and availability of natural forests for logging, increasing labour costs and other factors have favoured the emergence of rubber wood as a raw material for mechanical wood industry, especially for the manufacture of furniture and wood-based panel (Hong 1999).

Rubber wood can be a substitute for many species, including meranti (Shorea spp.), teak, oak

22

and pine (Balsiger et al. 2000). The timber is moderately durable and light creamy in colour, which makes it attractive and popular among consumers. Rubber wood is also useful in mechanical and chemical pulping processes to produce paper with fair quality. However, some problems remain as special attention needs to be given to remove latex residues from the pulp (Yussof 1999).

Thailand has a large rubber wood industry, and its products include furniture, particle board, parquet board and construction boles (RFD 2000). The annual export value of Thailand's furniture industry is more than 300 million US dollars (FAO 2005). Yet the rubber wood industry in Thailand still faces some constraints and challenges within resource management as well as industries, product and market development. Although the resource base is large, the quality of raw material is restricted. According to Anonymous (2000), the main problems concerning resource management and utilisation were inefficiency of rubber wood raw material management due to insufficient promotion and development of high-yielding combined latex and timber clones, unfavourable infrastructure, and difficulties in logging especially during rainy season, and restricting regulations for logging.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS FOR FIELD STUDY

3.1. Material

3.1.1 Field work and study areas

Field work was carried out in northeastern and eastern Thailand between August and November of 2005. The field work was conducted together and in collaboration with project partners from CFC- funded project, Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smallholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems. Project partners involved in field work were students and staff from Kasetsart University, Bangkok.

Thailand is situated in the tropical zone between latitudes 6-20 North (N) and longitudes 98105 East (E). The climate is characterized by moderate rainfall and a hot dry summer. The 23

country has a monsoon climate: Northeast monsoon from December to February (the dry season), hot weather and variable winds of March, April and May, Southwest monsoon from May to October (the rainy season), and retreating monsoon period of October and November (Pendleton 1962). Maximum day temperatures in Thailand change relatively little during the year. In upper Thailand, the maximum temperature sometimes exceeds 40C (Koteswaram 1974).

The amount and timing of rain is much more important to nature and agriculture in Thailand than is temperature. Rainfall can be unpredictable, and the amount of rain can vary much from place to place and from year to year. Most of Thailand receives the majority of rain during the Southwest monsoon. Generally, the quantity of rainfall decreases with increasing distance from the sea, but the amount of rainfall and the length of rainy season vary much depending on area and altitude. The greatest quantities of rain (4200 mm annually on average) are received on the West coast of the peninsula. The peninsula in general is characterized by ample and relatively evenly distributed rainfall. On the other hand, the extreme Southeast coast is very similar to the West coast of the peninsula (Pendleton 1962).

24

The driest regions of Thailand are found in the Northeast, on the Khorat platform, which suffers from lack of water in the dry season. In the lower part of Khorat the average annual rainfall is only 1050 mm. On the other hand, in the far Northeast, along the Mekong River, over 2030 mm is received annually. Variation in the average amount of rainfall is therefore notable in the Northeast. During the Northeast monsoon, winds can be relatively cold in Khorat and thus also daily temperature variations are greater than those in the central valley and in more maritime areas (Pendleton 1962).

Figure 3. Map of Thailand and study areas (district, province) (Map: Wikipedia, modified www-document). 25

The first aim of this study was to investigate the performance of rubber in relation to climatic conditions in the non-traditional cultivation area. Therefore it was necessary to conduct the study in areas with different amounts of rainfall. The Northeast of Thailand has been promoted for rubber plantation establishment, and, on the other hand, considerable variation in the amount of rainfall exists within the northeastern region enabling the identification of suitable study sites for comparison.

Ban Kruen district in the province of Buriram in the lower part of the Khorat plain (approximately 14N, 103E), Pak Khat district in Nong Khai province by the Mekong River in upper Khorat (approx. 18N, 103E) and Lad Krating village in Chachoengsao province in the central valley at the border of Khorat region (approx. 13N, 101E) were selected as study sites. The locations of study areas are marked on the map (Figure 3). Chachoengsao formally belongs to the East of Thailand, but since it is situated at the border of the Khorat plateau, in this study the Chachoengsao area also is referred to as Northeast, in order to make a distinction between the new cultivation area and the area of the South and East.

The other aim of this study was to compare the performance of two or more clones. To overview the situation of rubber cultivation in northeastern Thailand, the Office of Rubber Replanting Fund (ORRAF) was contacted in Bangkok. Local offices were also contacted in Buriram and Nong Khai. With the help of ORRAF staff and local farmers, suitable study areas were searched. It soon became evident that finding several clones for this study was more difficult than previously expected. The main clone planted at smallholdings in the Northeast of Thailand appeared to be RRIM 600 (Rubber Research Institute Malaysia, clone number 600), BPM 24 (Bank Pertanian Malaysia, clone number 24) occupying less land. For this reason, the study was limited to clones RRIM 600 and BPM 24. Both of these clones have been classified as high-yielding latex clones by the RRIT (RFD 2000). According to Sirianayu (2005), high-yielding timber clones or combined timber-latex clones have not yet been planted in northeastern Thailand.

All plantations in Buriram and Nong Khai were smallholdings, and the size of individual plantations ranged from 0.6 to 3.2 ha. The plantations in Chachoengsao, with the exception of the youngest plantation which was a smallholding, belonged to Chachoengsao Rubber Research Centre (CRRC), of the Rubber Research Institute of Thailand. 26

The aim was to find plantations of both clones and of corresponding ages from all three study areas, in order to make a comparison between clones and areas. In Buriram, young BPM 24 plantations could not be found. Neither in Nong Khai nor in Chachoengsao could newly established BPM 24 plantations be found. The location of and other information on each study site are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Plantations included in this study.

No Province Location Clone Age ha BR16 BR10 BR03 BB19 NR16 NR08 NR03 NB16 NB07 CR16 CR06 CR03 CB16 CB08 Buriram Buriram Buriram Buriram Nong Khai Nong Khai Nong Khai Nong Khai Nong Khai Chachoengsao Chachoengsao Chachoengsao Chachoengsao Chachoengsao 1438'56 N 10312'79 E 1438'50 N 10312'72 E 1438'65 N 10313'47 E 1438'51 N 10312'89 E 1837'36 N 10335'60 E 1836'09 N 10335'68 E 1837'07 N 10335'15 E 1837'11 N 10335'59 E 1836'09 N 10335'68 E 135' N *) 1015' E *) 135' N *) 1015' E *) 1359'41 N 10143'81 E 135' N *) 1015' E *) 135' N *) 1015' E *) RRIM600 RRIM600 RRIM600 BPM24 RRIM600 RRIM600 RRIM600 BPM24 BPM24 RRIM600 RRIM600 RRIM600 BPM24 BPM24 16 10 3 19 16 8 3 16 7 16 6 3 15-16 8

*) Approximate coordinates
Area, No of trees/ha 360 730 480 390 400 530 545 430 310 420 440 340 200 180 3mx7m 3mx6m 3mx7m 3mx7m 3mx7m 3mx7m 3mx7m 3mx7m 3mx7m 2.5 m x 7 m, in blocks of eight 2.5 m x 7 m, in blocks of eight 3mx7m 2.5 m x 7 m, in blocks of eight 2.5 m x 8 m, in blocks of eight Planting density

1,3 0,8 2,1 1 2 0,6 0,8 0,6 1,3 0,8 0,6 3,2 4,8 6,4

3.1.2 Plantation inventory

At plantations trees were growing in lines, the planting pattern being 3 meters x 7 meters in most places (planting pattern was measured using tape measure). This even distribution of trees throughout the area enabled the plantation inventory to be conducted so that every 20 th tree from horizontal lines was chosen as a sample tree. This systematic sampling resulted in 5 % of the total number of trees being measured. As the number of trees grows larger, small 27

sample size leads to more reliable results than the same sample size at a smaller plantation (Kangas and Pivinen 2000). For this reason at plantations larger than 20 rai (3.2 ha) every 50th tree was chosen as a sample tree, resulting in 2 % of the total number of trees being measured. Altogether 302 trees were measured.

The following was measured from sample trees: diameter at breast height (DBH), girth at breast height, tree height, height of crown, length of branch-free stem (also referred to as clear bole) and the width of crown at two opposite points. Diameter and girth were measured at the precision of 0.1 cm using tallmeter. Height attributes were measured at the precision of 0.5 m using Suunto hypsometer. The length of branch-free stem was defined as the length of stem from the ground before any branches started. Crown was defined to start where the foliage started. Width of crown was measured from the ground using tape measure, at the precision of 10 cm. The borders of each smallholding plantation were marked as way points using Garmin eTrex Legend GPS navigator. The area of each plantation was defined using GPS. The accuracy of Garmin eTrex Legend is about 15 m.

3.1.3 Interviews and field observations

The owners of each plantation were interviewed in Thai with the help of a translator. The basic information of planted clone, area of plantation and age of the trees was obtained in this way. In addition, information on plantation history and agroforestry practises was collected. The list of questions asked is available in Appendix 2. The health of the trees, in case there was any visible damage or illness, and signs of previous forest cover in plantation area were visually observed in the field.

3.1.4 Climatic conditions and soil types

Meteorological data were obtained from the Thai Meteorological Department (TMD). Rainfall data from the last 20 years included the amount of rainfall per month, amount of rainy days per month and daily maximum. Temperature data included monthly mean, minimum and maximum temperatures. Weather stations where the data were collected were Nan Rong weather station, number 436401 in Buriram province, Chachoengsao weather station, number 423001 in Chachoengsao province and Nong Khai weather station, number 28

352201 in Nong Khai province. For temperatures, data from Chachoengsao station were not available. Data from Chon Buri weather station, number 459201 in Chon Buri province were used instead. Statistical data on the climatic conditions in study areas are presented in Table 3, Figures 4 and 5 and in Appendix 3.

Table 3. Climatic conditions in study areas, mean values in parentheses. Data from the last 20 years (TMD 2005).
Study area (district, province) Lad Krating, Chachoengsao Ban Kruen, Buriram Pak Khat, Nong Khai Rainfall, mm/year; min-max (mean) 790-1400 (1180) 840-1500 (1150) 930-2250 (1570) Annual rainy days; min-max (mean) 51-118 (88) 85-142 (113) 106-156 (128) Temperature,*) mean, max, min 28.6, 39.9, 13 27, 41.8, 8.5 26.4, 42.8, 4.9 6 months 6 months 6 months Dry period **)

*) Lad Krating statistics from Chon Buri province, approximately 100 km to the South from Lad Krating. **) Number of months when rainfall is less than 100 mm, 20-year average.

Annual rainfall in study areas

2400 2200 2000 Rainfall, mm 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 Year 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Buriram Nong Khai Chachoengsao

Figure 4. Mean annual rainfall in mm in study areas between the years 1984-2004 (TMD 2005).

29

Number of annual rainy days in study areas

160

Buriram Nong Khai Chachoengsao

Number of annual rainy days

150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Figure 5. Number of annual rainy days in study areas (TMD 2005).

Information on soil types was collected using soil maps, literature and the soil information CD-ROM of Land Development Department of Thailand (LDD). Some of these documents were translated from Thai into English. In Buriram and Nong Khai, local soil doctor volunteers trained by LDD were interviewed for information on soil types, soil condition and problems related to soil. The LDD has trained soil doctors since 1995, and presently there are 55 000 soil doctors in villages in Thailand (LDD 2005b). They are in charge of coordinating land development between the LDD and farmers in villages, transferring new technology to their neighbours and participating in activities of the LDD (LDD 2005b).

Table 4. Soil conditions in study areas (Soilview 2.0, Soil map of Buriram province, Soil map of Chachoengsao province, Characterization of established... 2003, all published by the LDD; Pintha 2005).
Study area Soil type Soil series PH values Acid to strongly acid, pH 4.5-5.5 Draining Well drained Character Deep soil Natural vegetation Dry Dipterocarp forest Land use Problems Sandy soil, water deficiency, low natural fertility, erosion Shallow soil, low natural fertility, erosion Low pH, nutrient loss

Lad Krating, Sandy loam Chachoengsao

Ban Kruen, Buriram Pak Khat, Nong Khai

Laterite clay, laterite Sandy loam, loamy sand, loam Mixture of Khorat and Phonpisai soil series

Strongly acid to neutral pH 4.5-7 Very strongly acid to strongly acid pH <4.5-5.5

Well drained Moderate

Shallow soil

Dry open Dipterocarp forest Dry Dipterocarp forest, Mixed deciduous forest

Deep soil, ground water depth <1.6 m

30

3.2 Methods

3.2.1 Estimation of wood volume and biomass

Bole volume (also referred to as wood volume, excludes bark, branches and leaves) and total dry biomass were calculated for each tree using volume and biomass models developed for Hevea brasiliensis by Risnen (1997) in Mexico. These models were created based on material consisting of 19 trees for bole volume model and 9 trees for biomass model. Bole volume Vb, dm3 = 0.065789 * d 2.179986 * h 0.488780, excluding bark, branches and leaves. Residual error 13.5 % (Risnen 1997) (Equation 1)

Total biomass B, kilograms = 0.066218 * d 2.131143 * hc 0.612696 Residual error 6.5 % (Risnen 1997) (Equation 2)

In these models, d = DBH in centimetres, h = height in meters, and hc = height of crown in meters.

Another model, developed in Thailand by the RFD, was also used to estimate wood volumes. For creating RFD's volume model, 931 trees from the South and East of Thailand were measured. Volume V, m3 = 0.0000461697 * x 2.0816, including bark and branches. (RFD cited in Urapeepatanapong 1989) (Equation 3)

In this model, x is girth at breast height (1.3 m) in centimeters.

This model gives the total volume of a tree, which can be further divided into sawn timber (usable volume), fuelwood and wood residues, and pole (Urapeepatanapong 1989).

Mean square error for the inventory results (sample y) was calculated using the following formula: Mean Square Error, Se = var y (Kangas and Pivinen 2000) (Equation 4)

31

Mean variance, var = ( 1- (n/N) * (Sy2/n) ) where n = number of samples, N = total number of trees, Sy = distribution (Kangas and Pivinen 2000) (Equation 5)

Mean square errors for results on wood volume and biomass using these volume models varied from 1.8 % to 17.8 %. Mean square errors are presented in Figure 6.

Mean square error for estimated wood volume and biomass

18

Volume, m3/ha (Risnen) Volume, m3/ha (RFD) Biomass, kg/ha (Risnen)

Mean square error %

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 BB19 1 ha BR16 1.3 ha BR10 0.8 ha NB16 0.6 ha NR16 2 ha NR08 0.6 ha NB07 1.3 ha CR16 0.8 ha CB16 4.8 ha CR06 0.6 ha CB08 6.4 ha

Plantation

Figure 6. Mean square error percentage for wood volume and biomass estimates for each plantation. Plantation abbreviations: BB19- Buriram, BPM 24, 19 years; BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16- Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years

In plantations NB16 and CB08, the distribution values within population grew large, because a few trees included as sample trees were larger than average.

In addition, the volume of clear bole was calculated. This is the volume of the economically valuable lower part of trunk, before branching begins. For calculating this volume, trunk diameter at the point where first branches start was needed. These diameters were not measured in the field, and to attain values for these diameters, a taper curve was used. A taper curve for rubber trees growing in Mexico was created by Risnen (1997) and it was found to be relatively similar to that of silver birch (Betula pendula), created by Laasasenaho (1982).

32

Therefore the taper curve of silver birch was used in this study to get estimates for clear bole volume of rubber trunks. A polynomial form model for silver birch was developed by Laasasenaho (1982). Using this model, a taper curve could be calculated when tree height and DBH were known. From this taper curve it was possible to get estimates for diameter at branching point and further calculate the volume of the clear bole. In order to get closer estimates of volume, a correction equation was used.

The number of trees per hectare for each plantation and further the wood volume per hectare was calculated using total number of trees and the area of plantation. However, some problems were encountered. Firstly, the exact area of all plantations could not be verified due to technical problems. Trees were not distributed evenly and planting densities varied: most common planting pattern was 3 m x 7 m, leading to approximately 480 planted trees per hectare. However, higher densities such as 3 m x 6 m and 2.5 m x 7 m were used at some plantations, and at one plantation the planting density was 3 m x 8 m. In CRRC, trees were planted in blocks, and at one plantation the total number of trees per hectare was as low as 180. Highest number of trees per hectare was 730. To minimize the effects of estimated number of trees per hectare and planting pattern to the results, the wood volume per hectare was calculated as though standard planting density of 3 m x 7 m had been used at all plantations and all trees had survived. This creates over-estimation of wood volume, but at the same time it facilitates the comparison of two clones and different areas.

3.2.2 Mann-Whitney's U-test

In order to investigate variation between populations, i.e. 1) the variation in wood volume between clones RRIM 600 and BPM 24 in each study site and 2) the variation in wood volume within clones RRIM 600 and BPM 24 between study sites, a non-parametric MannWhitney's U-test was chosen, because the sample size in some plantations was small (less than 20 trees) and therefore a test based on the application of normal distribution risks giving inaccurate results (Ranta et al. 1989). Mann-Whitney's U-test was carried out in SPSS 14.0 for Windows software.

33

4. RESULTS

4.1 Plantation performance

4.1.1 Height and crown structure

On average, RRIM 600 clones aged 16 were 17.4 meters tall while BPM 24 clones aged 1619 were 15.3 meters tall. Yet BPM 24 always had taller clear boles than RRIM 600. On average, BPM 24 had a clear bole measuring 4.9 meters while RRIM 600 had 3.8 meters of clear bole. In plantations aged 16 or more, BPM 24 clones had a clear bole measuring 4.5 meters while the clear bole of RRIM 600 trees was approximately 3.6 meters tall.

Clone RRIM 600 grew taller than clone BPM 24 in all three areas. There were no differences in average height of RRIM 600 trees between Buriram (144' N, 1032' E, average height 16.7 m) and Chachoengsao (135'N, 1015'E, average height 16.5 m). In Nong Khai (184'N, 1033'E) average height was taller, 19.1 meters. In all three areas the height of RRIM 600 trees varied to a similar extent but within different minimum and maximum figures. In ascending order, height of 16 years old RRIM 600 trees varied between 10 and 19.5 meters in Chachoengsao, 12.3-21.5 m in Buriram and 16-25 m in Nong Khai.

BPM 24 clones aged 16 or older grew much taller in Nong Khai (average height being 18 m) compared to Buriram (13.9 m) and Chachoengsao (14.9 m). In Buriram, height of 19-year old trees varied between 10-19 meters, in Chachoengsao (trees aged 16) between 10-19.5 m and in Nong Khai (trees aged 16) between 12-22 m.

34

Average height and proportion of clear bole

25 20 Height, m 15 10 5 0
BB19 BR16 BR10 // NR16 NB16 NB07 NR08 // CR16 CB16 CR06 CB08

Plantation

Figure 7. Average height and proportion of clear bole (in brown) in meters in plantations, excluding young (three-year old) plantations. Plantation abbreviations: BB19- Buriram, BPM 24, 19 years;
BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10- Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16- Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years.

Average height of RRIM 600 trees as related to plantation age.

Plantation age, years Figure 8. Development of mean height in meters as related to plantation age in three RRIM 600 plantations in Nong Khai and Chachoengsao and in two plantations in Buriram.

As seen in Figure 8, the growth development of clone RRIM 600 seemed to be faster in Nong Khai than in Chachoengsao and Buriram. Trees also seemed to reach a taller maximum height in Nong Khai than in the other two study areas. By the end of a rotation (approx. 30 years), according to this estimate, an average height of rubber trees in Nong Khai could be about 25 35

meters while in Buriram and Chachoengsao the average height would be about 20 meters. Early growth of clone RRIM 600 was compared between the three study areas. In Nong Khai the average girth was 10.5 centimetres and average height 4 meters, in Buriram 10.9 cm and 5.7 m and in Chachoengsao 16.2 cm and 6.4 m, respectively. Mann-Whitney's U-test was carried out in order to investigate the differences between these areas.

Table 5. Average girth and average height in three-year old plantations in Buriram, Nong Khai and Chachoengsao. Means sharing the same letter are not significantly different at P > 0.05 (Mann-Whitney's U-test). Standard error of the average (mean) is indicated by the number in parentheses.
Study site Buriram Nongkhai Chachoengsao Girth, cm Height, m 10.90a (0.68) 10.52a (0.44) 16.20 (0.02) 5.71 (0.32) 3.95 (1.30) 6.44 (0.54)

The average widths of crowns are presented in Figure 9. There seem to be no marked differences in crown structure between the two clones or the three areas. Only in Buriram, clone RRIM 600 appeared to develop a narrow crown. This may be affected by the fact that the plantation BR16 was suffering from bark disease.

36

Average width of crown

700

Average width of crown, cm

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 BB19 BR16 BR10 // NR16 NB16 NB07 NR08 // CR16 CB16 CR06 CB08

Plantation

Figure 9. Average width of crowns (in centimeters) in study areas. Plantation abbreviations: BB19Buriram, BPM 24, 19 years; BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10- Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16- Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years.

4.1.2 Wood volume and biomass

General characteristics Average wood volume estimates received using Risnen's (1997) volume equation and RFD's equation (RFD 1988 cited in Urapeepatanapong 1989) are shown in Figure 10. The standard deviations for volume in different plantations are available in Appendix 4. Risnen's volume equation gave an estimate of bole volume excluding bark and branches, while RFD's equation gave a wood volume estimate which includes the volume of bark and branches. Risnen's model, which used height as a function, produced 23-41 % smaller results than RFD's model, depending on study area. RFD's model has been developed in the South and East of Thailand, and does not include tree height as a factor. Inclusion of height reduced the volume estimates for all plantations. The difference appeared especially significant in Buriram. According to RFD's volume equation, which was based solely on the girth of trees, plantation volume calculated for standard planting density was the highest, 128 m3ha-1, in one plantation (BR16) in Buriram. Using Risnen's equation, plantation NR16 in Nong Khai had the highest volume, 99 m3ha-1.

37

Average wood volume of one tree

300

Volume, dm3/tree (Risnen) Volume, dm3/tree (RFD)

Wood volume, dm3

250 200 150 100 50 0 BB19 BR16 BR10 // NB16 NR16 NB07 NR08 // CB16 CR16 CB08 CR06

Plantation

Figure 10. Individual volumes of trees in dm3 using Risnen's volume model, excluding bark and branches, and RFD's volume model, including bark and branches. Plantation abbreviations:
BB19- Buriram, BPM 24, 19 years; BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10- Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years.

In further studies, the volume estimates received using Risnen's volume equation were used. Generally volume equations based on height and DBH or more functions give more accurate results than those based on only one function (DBH) and are less vulnerable to variation caused by changes in environmental conditions. This can be seen in Figure 10, where RFD's equation resulted to higher volume estimates than Risnen's equation especially in Buriram, where apparently due to environmental conditions, trees were shorter than in Nong Khai.

The wood volume estimates for clone BPM 24 were smaller than those for clone RRIM 600 in all three regions. The difference between the two clones seemed to be most remarkable in Nong Khai. The difference was apparent also in Buriram, where a plantation of BPM 24 aged 19 years had smaller wood volume per hectare than a plantation of RRIM 600 which was three years younger. Wood volume in the BPM 24 plantation was 75 m3ha-1, while the volume in RRIM 600 plantation was 88 m3 ha-1. In Nong Khai, plantations of the same age (16) of BPM 24 and RRIM 600 had wood volumes of 65 and 98 m3ha-1 , respectively.

However, in younger plantations in Nong Khai, (NB07 and NR08), the differences were not so marked, 45 and 50 m3ha-1, respectively. Taking into account the age of the plantations, seven years for BPM 24 and eight years for RRIM 600, the difference appeared to be non38

existent. In Chachoengsao province, plantations CB16 and CR16 did not differ significantly in terms of volume per hectare (69 and 77 m3ha-1, respectively). Also, there seemed to be no marked difference between the performance of these clones in younger plantations (CB08: 53 m3ha-1 and CR06: 33 m3ha-1). There seemed to be no marked differences in wood volumes of clone BPM 24 between the three regions. RRIM 600 grew largest in Nong Khai, followed by Buriram and Chachoengsao.

For Figure 11, wood volume per hectare was calculated using Risnen's volume equation and a standard planting pattern (3 m x 7 m) for all plantations in order to eliminate the effect of planting pattern and number of survived trees. In addition, volume per hectare was calculated using the actual number of trees observed in plantations.

Average wood volume per hectare

120

Volume, m3/ha, in standard planting pattern Volume, m3/ha as related to observed number of trees/ha

Wood volume, m3/ha

100 80 60 40 20 0 BB19 BR16 BR10 // NB16 NR16 NB07 NR08

Plantation

//

CB16 CR16 CB08 CR06

Figure 11. Wood volume estimates in m3ha-1 calculated for standard planting density of 3 m x 7 m and as related to actual number of trees per hectare. Plantation abbreviations: BB19- Buriram, BPM
24, 19 years; BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10- Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16- Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years.

From Figure 11 it can be seen that the effect of planting pattern and number of trees per hectare on the results for wood volume per hectare could be decisive. In plantation BR10, the planting pattern was 3 m x 6 m. In Chachoengsao, in plantations CR16, CB16 and CR06, the pattern was 2.5 m x 7 m, in CB08 2.5 m x 8 m, and in all plantations trees grew in blocks of 39

eight in horizontal lines. In order to make wood volume estimates more comparable between plantations and less dependent on planting pattern and survival percentage, wood volume estimates calculated for standard planting density of 3 m x 7 m were used in further analysis.

Clear bole volume, i.e. the volume of the branch-free lower part of stem, is the proportion of trunk that can be used as sawn timber. Branches and tops are usually used for fuelwood and in charcoal-making. To compare the performance of rubber trees in a marginal area in terms of wood production potential, it was essential to pay attention mainly to the productivity of industrially utilisable wood. Estimates received for clear bole volume in m3ha-1 are shown in Figure 12.

Average volume of clear bole

70

Volume of clear bole, m3/ha

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 BB19 BR16 BR10 // NB16 NR16 NB07 NR08 // CB16 CR16 CB08 CR06

Plantation

Figure 12. Average clear bole volume (volume of branch-free lower part of trunk) in m3ha-1 at plantations, calculated using taper curve of silver birch (Betula pendula). Plantation abbreviations:
BB19- Buriram, BPM 24, 19 years; BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10- Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years.

The volume of clear bole was the highest (63 m3ha-1) in plantation NR16 (RRIM 600) in Nong Khai. The second largest volume was observed in plantations in Buriram, clone BPM 24 (53 m3ha-1) followed by clone RRIM 600 (50 m3ha-1). In Chachoengsao the wood volume was smaller, but in the same order, clone BPM 24 (44 m3ha-1) followed by clone RRIM 600 (42 m3ha-1). In Buriram and Chachoengsao, clone RRIM 600 produced a larger wood volume per hectare, but BPM 24 produced a larger volume of clear bole. The same development was visible in Chachoengsao and in Nong Khai in younger plantations. The average length of clear bole was taller in clone BPM 24 than that in clone RRIM 600 in all areas. 40

Recovery rates Recovery rates (the shares of usable wood volume of total bole volume) were calculated for each plantation. In this study, recovery rate means only the usable wood's percentage of bole volume, not of total volume that includes the branches. Clone BPM 24 generally had a higher recovery rate than clone RRIM 600. Recovery rates are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Recovery rates (share of usable wood volume of total bole volume) for plantations.
Site BB19 % 70.0 BR16 56.7 BR10 75.9 NB16 68.0 NR16 64.6 NB07 69.9 NR08 52.3 CB16 62.9 CR16 54.3 CB08 60.4 CR06 61.7

41

Biomass estimates Biomass estimates for trees growing in study areas are shown in Figure 13. Biomass was calculated using Equation 2. There were no marked differences in tree biomass between Buriram and Chachoengsao, or between the two clones growing in these regions. In Nong Khai, the biomass of clone RRIM 600 was significantly bigger than that of clone BPM 24. In the case of plantations NR16 and NB16 in Nong Khai this was apparently due to differences in volume and height. In younger plantations the situation was similar, but here biomass estimates could vary because of variation in the development of crown structure. Plantation BR10 in Buriram appeared to be very low in biomass compared to plantations of the same clone in Nong Khai and Chachoengsao.

Average dry biomass of one tree

200 175 Dry biomass, kg/ha 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 BB19 BR16 BR10 // NR16 NB16 NB07 NR08 Plantation // CR16 CB16 CR06 CB08

Figure 13. Average biomass per tree in kilograms.

Plantation abbreviations: BB19- Buriram, BPM 24, 19

years; BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10- Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16- Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years.

Within-clone variation Mann-Whitney's U-test was applied in order to investigate the differences in estimated wood volume per hectare and estimated volume of clear bole per hectare within clones RRIM 600 and BPM 24, between plantations in Nong Khai, Buriram and Chachoengsao. The results of Mann-Whitney's U-test are shown in Table 7.

42

Table 7. Average volume of clear bole (m3ha-1 ) and average total wood volume (m3ha-1 ) in plantations in Buriram, Nong Khai and Chachoengsao. Means sharing the same letter are not significantly different at P >0.05 (Mann-Whitney's U-test). Standard error of the average (mean) is indicated by the number in parentheses.
Clone Plantation 6-10 age Variable Buriram Nongkhai
Chachoeng sao

RRIM600 16

RRIM 600 7-8

BPM 24 16-19

BPM 24

Clear bole Wood m3ha-1 m3ha-1 25.02a (1.49) 26.64 (2.22) 20.39a (2.54) 32.89b (1.65) 50.44 (3.98) 33.06b (3.46)

Clear bole Wood m3ha-1 m3ha-1 50.19cde (3.26) 62.90c (1.04) 41.72de (4.33) 88.46fgh (7.07) 98.67fd (1.65) 76.81dgh (6.65)

Clear bole Wood m3ha-1 m3ha-1 31.31 (1.94) 31.71 (3.60) 44.81i (2.57) 52.53i (6.89)

Clear bole Wood m3ha-1 m3ha-1 52.71j (4.88) 45.32 (5.75) 43.50j (2.88) 75.27kl (6.98) 64.77km (5.95) 69.18lm (4.54)

Between-clone variation Mann-Whitney's U-test was applied in order to investigate the differences in estimated wood volume between clones RRIM 600 and BPM 24 in Nong Khai, Buriram and Chachoengsao.

Table 8. Average volume of clear bole (m3ha-1 ) and average total wood volume (m3ha-1 ) in plantations of BPM 24 and RRIM 600 in Buriram, Nong Khai and Chachoengsao. Means sharing the same letter are not significantly different at P >0.05 (Mann-Whitney's U-test). Standard error of the average (mean) is indicated by the number in parentheses.
Buriram Clone RRIM 600 BPM 24 RRIM 600 BPM 24 Age 16 16-19 6-10 7-8 Clear bole m3ha-1 50.19a (3.26) 52.71a (4.88) 25.02 (1.49) Wood m3ha-1 88.46b (7.07) 75.27b (6.98) 32.89 (1.65) Nong Khai Clear bole m3ha-1 62.90 (1.04) 45.32 (5.75) 26.64 (2.22) 31.31 (1.94) Wood m3ha-1 98.67 (1.65) 64.77 (5.95) 50.44c (3.98) 44.81c (2.57) Chachoengsao Clear bole m3ha-1 41.72d (4.33) 43.50d (2.88) 20.39 (2.54) 31.71 (3.60) Wood m3ha-1 76.81e (6.65) 69.18e (4.54) 33.06 (3.46) 52.53 (6.89)

43

4.2 Farming systems

4.2.1 General characteristics

One of the aims of this study was to study rubber farming systems, especially agroforestry practices, in the non-traditional rubber cultivation area in Thailand. Main characteristics of rubber farming systems are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Farming systems in rubber plantations visited.

Province Buriram Age 19 Tap: 4 rest 2:1 AF
5

Timing First 3 years

Crops

Forest trees

Animals No

Former land use Cassava field

Yes

Cassava, Morinda Acacia mangium (10 citrifolia trees) (Mulberry) Mulberry, Corn Mulberry, Corn Pea Pineapple Cicer arietinum (Chickpea) Azadirachta indica (Neem) No No No No No No No No No No No Pterocarpus macrocarpus, Neem

Buriram Buriram Buriram Nong Khai Nong Khai Nong Khai Nong Khai Nong Khai

16 10 3 16 16 7 8 3

2:1 1:1 No 2:1 2:2 2:1 2:2 No 1:2-3 2:1 No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes

First 3 years First 3 years Present Present First years First years

Yes (Fish) Yes (Fish) No No No No No No No No No No

Cassava field Oil crop (Helianthus annuus, Sunflower) field Rice field, then eucalyptus plantation Cassava and pineapple field Cassava and pineapple Mango and teak plantation Bamboo Rice field Cassava field Cassava field Cassava field Cassava field

Chachoengsao 16 Chachoengsao 16 Chachoengsao 6 Chachoengsao 8

Chachoengsao 3

No

Yes

Present

Pineapple, rubber No seedlings

No

Mango

Most plantations had been established because of government support for rubber planting. In Buriram and Nong Khai, farmers mentioned eucalyptus as an optional tree species for plantation establishment. Planting of eucalyptus was assisted by private companies by providing seedlings and fertilizer. However, farmers mentioned that in the case of rubber, ORRAF assisted also in land preparation for rubber planting.
4 Tap: Number of tapping days, Rest: Number of rest days following tapping days 5 Agroforestry

44

Apart from available support, other motives for rubber planting established were mentioned: High price of latex Long income period after plantation establishment Long rotation period, good income The possibility to sell rubber wood for furniture industry Rubber was planted because the farmer was dissatisfied with the performance of teak, whose growth seemed to be slow, and the low production of mango. Rubber trees were popular in the area in question.

Latex tapping practices varied at plantations. However, latex tapping was always stopped for the wintering period of rubber trees which falls between January and May. This was the practice due to poor latex quality during wintering.

Problems concerning rubber cultivation that were mentioned were bark disease at one plantation in Buriram, drought in two plantations in Buriram, insects at one plantation in Buriram, and low soil pH values in Nong Khai in general.

4.2.2 Agroforestry practices and land use history

At all plantations, rubber trees were the main crop cultivated and rubber was planted using a pattern of 3 m x 7 m in most places. This allows intercropping during the first years of rotation. At all plantations where agroforestry had been in use in the past, crops had been grown for the first three years of rotation. At one plantation aged 16 there were still some remnants of fruit crops (pineapple). Only in two plantations forest trees were introduced. Acacia mangium was introduced in one plantation because of the poor performance of rubber trees that were suffering from bark disease. According to the farmer, A. mangium trees were shading rubber trees significantly, and the latex production of shaded rubber trees was low. In another plantation in Chachoengsao, there were Pterocarpus macrocarpus trees growing in rubber plantation. However, these trees were shaded by rubber and nearly dead. In this plantation, Azadirachta indica had been grown with rubber during the first three years of rotation. Next to two rubber plantations in Buriram fish were cultivated in a pond.

45

All plantations had been established on land previously occupied by other agricultural crops, most commonly cassava or fruit. As a possible sign of previous natural forest cover, old tree stumps (Dipterocarpus spp.) were observed in one plantation.

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Variation in wood production potential between clones and study areas
High-yielding latex clones are used presently in northeastern Thailand. Even though rubber wood is currently much sought after for industrial purposes, the viability of rubber forest producing only wood and no latex has been assessed marginal. Rubber wood prices have been relatively low despite the demand, perhaps because of the fact that rubber wood is still considered as a residual resource (Arshad et al. 1997). At the moment the latex price is relatively high, making rubber growing for latex profitable (Bhumbhamon 2005). Planting rubber for forest plantations therefore is not considered as an economically viable option, at least for the smallholder sector, who cannot sufficiently afford the unproductive period before receiving income at harvest (Arshad et al. 1997; Kadir 1998)

Combined latex and wood production is, however, an increasing trend. According to Clment-Demange (2004), in these systems the share of wood in the cumulative income still seemed to be under 20 %, (10-30 % in a study by Arshad et al. 1997 in Malaysia) and, consequently, it was pointed out that the technical changes aiming at increasing rubber wood production must not be at the expense of latex production. For example, a higher rubber planting density has been reported to increase both latex and total biomass productions, reduce wind risk, assist in developing of a straight form of the trunks, and facilitate natural pruning, but it would also decrease the girth and therefore lead to smaller individual volumes of trees, increase establishment and labour costs and delay the opening age for tapping (Arshad et al. 1997; Mohd. Aris 2005; Doumbia et al. 2005). According to Clment-

Demange (2004), it does not seem interesting, from an economical point of view, to delay the opening age for tapping and accept a reduction in latex production in order to improve rubber wood production.

In the present study, some differences in wood production potential of rubber clones RRIM 46

600 and BPM 24 were observed, but often the variation was not proven to be relevant. Only in one area, in Nong Khai, the growth performance of clone RRIM 600 was significantly better than that of clone BPM 24. This was the case in mature plantations in terms of the total bole volume, and especially the clear bole volume. In Buriram and Chachoengsao, differences among these two clones in mature plantations were not found to be significant. When comparing the volumes of younger trees, in Nong Khai the difference in clear bole volume was reverse compared to the situation in older plantations- BPM 24 produced more usable wood. This was also the case in Chachoengsao, but this was likely due to a two-year age difference between clones at this location. In general, recovery rates for clone BPM 24 were higher than those for clone RRIM 600. This was due to the fact that clone BPM 24 produced a longer clear bole. It seems that the architecture of clone BPM 24 is more favourable for wood production. The total amount of clear bole in m3ha-1 was, however, higher in BPM 24 plantation only in Chachoengsao, because, in general, clone RRIM 600 yielded more wood.

According to this study, both clones could be used for wood production in the Northeast of Thailand. However, as discussed earlier, the plantation performance of rubber clones in terms of income is mainly dependent on the productivity of latex. A shift to growing RRIM 600 was observed in the Northeast, since no young (less than seven years old) plantations of BPM 24 could be found for this study. This indicates that RRIM 600 yields a higher amount of latex in northeastern Thailand, but this aspect was left out of present study.

Differences in growth performance of rubber between study areas appeared to be similar in both clones, and it was significant between Nong Khai and Buriram, and especially between Nong Khai and Chachoengsao, but not between Buriram and Chachoengsao. Among mature (16 years or older) RRIM 600 plantations, the wood volume, and especially clear bole volume, was higher in Nong Khai than in Chachoengsao. However, the variation between Nong Khai and Buriram or Buriram and Chachoengsao was not proven to be significant. Among younger RRIM 600 plantations, both the bole volume and the clear bole volume were found to be higher in Nong Khai than in Buriram or Chachoengsao. The clear bole volume of young RRIM 600 was slightly higher in Chachoengsao than in Buriram, even though the plantation in Buriram was older. For clone BPM 24, the proportion of clear bole was high in Nong Khai both in young and mature plantations, compared to Chachoengsao in the case of mature plantations in Buriram,. However, the total bole volume did not vary significantly between study areas, only in Nong Khai a young plantation was slightly higher in volume 47

than in Chachoengsao.

Growth of clone RRIM 600 in plantation number BR10 in Buriram seemed to be very slow compared to plantations of the same clone in Nong Khai (NR08) or Chachoengsao (CR06). The wood volume of trees in plantation BR10 was smaller than in NR08 or CR06, despite the fact that BR10 was already 10 years old. However, it is likely that the small size of trees resulted from a higher planting density as compared to plantations of similar age in Chachoengsao and Nong Khai.

Based on this study, environmental conditions in Nong Khai seem to favour the growth of rubber trees. The total wood volume, and especially usable stand volume, was larger in Nong Khai than in Buriram, and further difference was found between Nong Khai and Chachoengsao. When investigating the growth rate of clone RRIM 600 in the three study areas, it appeared that the clone grew faster and taller in Nong Khai than in Buriram or Chachoengsao. However, the number of plantations measured was small, and therefore the results need to be interpreted with caution. Due to very few BPM 24 plantations measured, a figure describing the growth development of clone BPM 24 could not de drawn.

The size of young trees at newly established plantations varied significantly between the three study areas. The growth had been fastest in Chachoengsao, followed by Buriram and Nong Khai. This result was in contrast to the growth of older plantations (aged six or older) in terms of height and wood volume. The size of RRIM 600 trees at newly established plantations was therefore not found to be a good indicator of plantation performance in following years.

It is not probable that exceptional soil properties had favoured the survival of rubber trees in Nong Khai as compared to Buriram and Chachoengsao, because mature (16-year-old) plantations in Nong Khai were situated next to each other, and the case was the same for younger plantations, but between these two plantations there was some distance (about one kilometer). The performance of both younger (6-7 years) and mature plantations in Nong Khai was better than that in Buriram and Chachoengsao. Differences in wood volume between Buriram and Chachoengsao in all plantations were found to be small. This was probably due to similar climatic conditions, whereas Nong Khai differed from Khorat plateau (Buriram) and the central valley (Chachoengsao). The average number of rainy days per year in Chachoengsao was smaller than that in Buriram for the last 20 years, but according to the 48

present study, this is not crucial for rubber growth and the rubberwood production potential.

Minimum temperatures experienced in the last 20 years in Chachoengsao, Buriram and Nong Khai were 13, 8.5 and 4.9 C, respectively. All these conditions are below the preferable minimum temperatures for rubber (14-15 C according to Compagnon 1987). According to Watson (1989), cold damage in rubber shoots could occur when the temperature falls sharply to less than 5 C. However, the effect of temperature to rubber growth was not evident in this study.

5.2 Agroforestry practices in northeastern Thailand

According to this study, agroforestry practices have not been largely adopted for rubber plantations in northeastern Thailand, and monocultural planting of rubber is still the rule. Intercropping of food crops such as cassava, mulberry, corn, pineapple and pea or neem (Azadirachta indica) with rubber is, however, done in the early years of plantation development. Forest trees were only integrated into two plantations, and none of the plantations visited was used as pasture for cattle. Fish were cultivated in a pond in one plantation. However, the number of plantations visited was small, and in Chachoengsao the plantations were experimental. Therefore the results of this study may not well represent the situation in northeastern Thailand in general.

In a study by Cherdchom et al. (2002), improved rubber farming systems (namely the rubberintercrop farming, rubber-fruit tree farming, rubber-livestock farming and integrated farming) showed better economic performance, including higher net income, than the traditional monocultural rubber farming system. Especially good alternatives were found to be the subsystems rubber-pineapple, rubber-durian-mangosteen, rubber-poultry and rubber-durianfishery systems. In conclusion, these systems were recommended for promotion in the rubbergrowing area in Thailand (Cherdchom et al. 2002).

According to Joshi (2005), diversifying income sources in rubber plantations in marginal environments could be crucial. In this study, the performance of rubber trees in northeastern Thailand appeared to be somewhat, but not remarkably, poorer than the performance of rubber in the South, as described later. However, latex yields were not measured. In any case,

49

financial analysis of income from traditional rubber monoculture and integrated food crops or forest trees in northeastern Thailand would be an interesting topic for further study. Rubberpineapple, rubber-poultry and rubber-fishery systems could be worth considering for further study in the Northeast, since some of these systems are already in use to some extent. The price of latex has been fluctuating in the world market, and also for this reason diversification of income could be desirable.

According to a study by Wibawa et al. (2005) on smallholder rubber agroforestry systems in Indonesia, trade-offs between inputs (fertilizers, labour, chemicals) and growth or plant diversity were always of interest to farmers. Due to constraints faced by farmers, such as the lack of capital or lack of labour, farmers had to choose between allocated inputs. Therefore maximum rubber growth was not always found to be the most important objective for establishing rubber agroforestry systems.

5.3 Wood production potential in the Northeast and East compared to the South
For assessing the wood production potential of rubber tree in the non-traditional area in Thailand, it was useful to compare the results of the present study with those on wood production potential in the traditional cultivation area in southern Thailand, where climatic conditions are more favourable for rubber than in the Northeast. The RFD has made estimates on the productivity of rubber plantations in the South and East of Thailand. A total of 235 sample plots (1 rai or 0.16 hectares each) was measured. The productivity was assessed using a volume model (Equation 3) and applying the results into tree spacing of 3 m x 8 m (RFD 1988 cited in Urapeepatanapong 1989). The estimates for productivity are presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Estimates on the productivity of rubber trees in the South and East of Thailand, in m3ha-1 as related to plantation age (RFD 1988 cited in Urapeepatanapong 1989).
Tree age, years 19 20 21 22 23 24 Wood volume, m3ha-1 145.7 161.3 167.9 170.5 176.9 207.7

50

Estimates on wood recovery rates were also made. Recovery rates for round or sawn timber, fuelwood or wood residue and pole were estimated at 49.65 %, 38.72 % and 12.23 % of stack volume, respectively. Solid short-length timber was estimated to amount 0.673 times of stack volume (RFD 1988 cited in Urapeepatanapong 1989).

In order to make these results comparable with those from the present study, wood volume estimates for plantations in the northeastern region were converted for tree spacing of 3 m x 8 m. In addition, results from the South of Thailand were extrapolated for younger plantations (Appendix 5). The comparison is presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Wood volume of rubber trees in m3ha-1 at plantations in the South of Thailand compared with plantations measured in the present study (figures for the South of Thailand: RFD 1988 cited in Urapeepatanapong 1989).
Area Plantation age Clone Wood volume, m3ha-1 according to RFD (Equation 3.) 120 99 112 110 Wood volume, m3ha-1 according to Risnen (Equation 1.) 67 76 86

South and East Chachoengsao Buriram Nong Khai

16 16 16 16

Unknown RRIM600 RRIM600 RRIM600

As visible in Table 11, wood volume estimates per hectare for clone RRIM 600 are lower in all areas in northeastern Thailand compared to southern and eastern Thailand. As demonstrated earlier, clone RRIM 600 seemed to perform slightly better than clone BPM 24 in all three study areas in the Northeast, and therefore RRIM 600 was chosen for this comparison. When comparing wood volume estimates resulting from RFD's model (Equation 3), which does not use tree height as a function, the wood volume in Buriram and Nong Khai is comparable to that in the South and East of Thailand. This is in line with the previous study by Chantuma et al. (2003), where wood volume was 139 m3ha-1 at a plantation aged 15 in Nong Khai and 188 m3 ha-1 at a plantation aged 19 in Chachoengsao. However, according to Risnen's equation, which takes the height into account, trees in Nong Khai seem to produce most wood out of study areas in the Northeast, but plantation the wood volume is lower than that in the South of Thailand. 51

The oldest plantation included in this study was 19 years old. The usual rotation period of a rubber plantation is 25-30 years. Therefore the wood production potential of rubber at the end of a rotation cannot be evaluated here. A model for predicting the radial growth of rubber trees as a function of climate has been developed in Indonesia by Wijaya et al. (2005). The diameter growth rate is crucial to latex production, as it determines the age at which the tapping of rubber trees can be started. In this study it was, however, noticed that, in terms of wood production potential, tree height seems to be an equally important factor in determining the wood production potential. In plantations in Buriram and Chachoengsao, the diameter of trees was comparable to those in Nong Khai. A volume model based on girth gave good estimates for tree volume especially in Buriram. However, including tree height as a factor in estimating stand volume significantly reduced the wood volume estimates in Buriram. Therefore is seems that only the diameter or the girth alone is not a good indicator of wood production potential in the Northeast.

In RFD's study, an estimate for recovery rate in the South and East of Thailand was made to apply for the final cutting of the stand. In the present study, recovery rates were also estimated. As pointed out, the plantations in this study were not yet close to the end of their rotation period, and therefore these figures are not entirely comparable. According to RFD (1988 cited in Urapeepatanapong 1989), the recovery rate for sawn timber in the South and East of Thailand was 49.7 %. The share of pole which is not included in this figure was estimated to account for 12.2%. Altogether the share of clear bole could therefore be estimated as at 61.9 %. In this study the average recovery rate from plantations aged 16 years or older was estimated as 63.1 %. In this respect the wood production potential of rubber in the Northeast could be comparable to that in the South and East.

According to a study by Arshad et al. (1997) in Malaysia, a rubber smallholding could yield 180 m3 ha-1 of green wood at the end of a rotation. Estimates for clear bole were not made, but according to Lemmens et al. (1995), a 25-year old rubber plantation in Malaysia has an estimated volume of extractable bole ranging from 52-163 m3ha-1. In this study, the highest bole volume (82 m3ha-1) and clear bole volume (57 m3ha-1) were observed in Nong Khai in a plantation aged 16, assuming that 90 % of trees had survived. However, the methodology used in the quoted studies from Malaysia for assessing wood volumes was different from the 52

one used in the present study. Volume equations used in the quoted studies were not available, and more reliable comparison could therefore not be made. Individual rubber trees have been estimated to yield about 0.62 m3 of clear bole at the time of felling, when trees are about 25 years old (Sekhar 1992). In Malaysia, a study was undertaken in order to assess the productivity of rubber plantations in terms of wood yield. RRIM 2000 series clones that have been recommended as high-yielding latex and timber clones, aged 1417, were observed to have clear bole volumes from 0.33 to 0.53 m3 per tree, and total wood volumes of 0.63-1.33 m3 per tree. Clone RRIM 2001, which is a hybrid between RRIM 600 and PB 260, aged 17, yielded 0.41 m3 of clear bole and 1.23 m3 of total wood on average (Arshad et al. 1997). In the present study the average wood volume of rubber trees aged 16-19 was 0.17 m3, excluding bark and branches, and the average clear bole volume was 0.10 m3 per tree.

According to RFD (2000), one particular problem related to the quality of extractable material is the common practice of planting rubber using budded stumps. Planting budded stumps coupled with inappropriate pruning can cause branching at an early point. In comparison, trees cultivated from seedlings usually exhibit longer and straighter stems (RFD 2000).

As described earlier, rubber planting in Thailand is intensively assisted and promoted by the Thai Government, including the non-traditional area. The present forest cover in the Northeast of Thailand is low, especially the Khorat plateau is largely cleared of forest (Collins et al. 1991), and in the absence of natural forest cover, rubber plantations could serve as erosion control and carbon storage. However, despite the present green reputation of rubber wood justified by its use as a substitute for other tropical timbers, the environmental effects of rubber planting as such are not always positive. Obviously, a rubber plantation is not comparable to natural forest in terms of biodiversity of flora and fauna. Rubber trees cast shade effectively, making the survival of other plants and animals feeding on them difficult. Improved management practices and agroforestry could be ways to improve the ecological values of a rubber plantation. It would be interesting to study further the species composition and development in rubber monoculture and different rubber agroforestry systems in Thailand.

53

5.4 Critical assessment of the study

5.4.1 Aims achieved

The first aim of this study was to investigate the wood production potential (usable stand volume as related to rubber age) in rubber clones in relation to geographical area and climatic conditions. This objective was met, sample plots were chosen from areas representing different climatic conditions and plantations of corresponding ages were measured. The volume of rubber trees was evaluated using a volume model developed in Mexico. A locally developed model was also available, but due to the parameters used in the Mexican model, it appeared to give more accurate results for comparing the effect of environmental conditions on tree growth. However, the number of trees used for generating the volume model was rather small and trees were older than the ones measured in present study.

Usable stand volume was calculated using a taper curve model developed for silver birch, since the taper curve of rubber was found to be similar to that of silver birch. Because all estimates for total wood volume as well as usable stand volume were made using the same volume equation, a comparison could be made at least within this study. The results of this study were also compared with another study from Thailand, in which similar methods were used. Comparing the results of this study with other studies from Thailand, or from other parts of the world, need precautions.

The second objective was to compare the wood production potential of different rubber clones in relation to geographical areas and climatic conditions. It proved challenging to find several clones for this study. Two clones were found in most areas, but in Buriram, only one plantation of clone BPM 24 in addition to clone RRIM 600 was found. Planting material had been provided by the ORRAF, and it seemed that RRIM 600 was the clone mostly promoted in the study areas.

The third objective of this study was to preliminarily investigate the effects of site characteristics, especially previous land-use history, on the performance of rubber. This objective was not met, since all plantations but one were established on land previously used

54

for food crops and therefore a comparison could not be made. According to Thai legislation clearing of forest land for crop cultivation is not allowed.

The fourth aim was to preliminarily identify and study the components of agroforestry systems used in rubber plantations. This aim was met. Yet the number of rubber smallholdings visited was rather small, especially as the plantations at CRRC were experimental. A more reliable farming system characterization would need a lot more data from the field. According to Joshi (2005), the composition of agroforestry systems in Thailand have not yet been well documented. This small case study provides some information from the non-traditional area.

5.4.2 Limitations of the study

In this study, the effects of different and various factors influencing tree growth could not be identified and separated from each other, in order to examine the effect (on tree growth) of one factor, such as environmental conditions in this case. Apart from environmental conditions, other factors having a significant effect on the growth of rubber or any tree are genetics and management practices. The observed variation in growth performance in this study was likely to be influenced by management as well as various environmental conditions (such as soil type) apart from climatic conditions, and therefore the results of this study need to be interpreted with caution.

The impact of latex tapping on the radial growth of rubber trees is well known and its impact on total production of biomass has also been studied (Doumbia et al. 2005). When trees are wounded, they convert resources normally used for growth to the production of latex. This diversion can cause a measurable reduction in the growth of tapped rubber trees (Peters 1994). In this study, the management and latex tapping practices varied from one plantation to another. Especially between different management conditions, experimental (CRRC) sites and smallholdings, latex tapping practices varied. In Chachoengsao trees were tapped less frequently, and tapping started later than in smallholdings. Therefore it is possible that the effect of latex tapping practices has influenced the outcome of this study.

Separating the effect (on tree growth) of climatic factors from other environmental factors is

55

very difficult. In this study all sample plots were situated within the same climatic and geographical region and under similar soil types, but physiographic and chemical properties of the soil can vary. The effect of these factors was not investigated in this study.

It can be questioned whether the sample plots chosen were good representatives of rubber plantations in the study areas. For this study plantations needed to be of corresponding ages, and in the study areas rubber plantations were not widespread. For this reason choosing representative plantations out of many was often not possible. At smallest plantations the number of trees included as sample trees was small, approximately 20 trees, but this was chosen to be the practice due to the very uniform structure of the plantations in terms of age, size, form and condition of trees.

In order to compare the performance of rubber between study areas, individual wood volumes of trees were used and they were converted to a planting pattern of 3 m x 7 m. This was the practice due to the variable number of trees per hectare, which was affected by landscape (for example, a small river ran through plantation NR16) and varying planting patterns. At CRRC the number of trees was as low as 180-200 trees per hectare, because trees were planted in experimental pattern (in blocks of eight). The lowest planting densities at CRRC therefore resulted from experimental design and actually most trees were still growing in a 3 m x 7 m or 8 m design. The distance between blocks resulted in a low number of trees per hectare. Comparing the wood volume estimates from plantations in different areas still needs precaution, since trees grown in higher densities usually develop longer boles and slimmer trunks compared to those grown with ample space. It can be concluded that the girth of trees and therefore plantation volume in Chachoengsao may appear somewhat larger compared to Nong Khai or Buriram due to the tree spacing.

Due to the limitations of this study, it needs to be considered as a case study and farming systems characterization rather than a study to explore solely the effect of climatic conditions on rubber growth. In order to investigate the influence of climate or soil, experimental conditions and more time would need to be used for this kind of study in order to get reliable results. It is worth mentioning that research on the growth of rubber seedlings under water stress has already been conducted from instance in China (Jiang 1988) and in India (Chandrashekar et al. 1998).

56

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

According to this study, the wood production potential of rubber in northeastern Thailand can on suitable sites be comparable to that in the South. The highest wood production potential among the areas of present study lies in Nong Khai, where environmental conditions, apparently the rainfall, appear to favour rubber-growing. Between Buriram and Chachoengsao there were no marked differences in plantation performance in terms of wood production, but even in these areas the wood production potential is not very far from that in Nong Khai. However it has to be underlined, that the possible profitability of a rubber plantation in the Northeast is mostly dependent on the capability of trees for latex production in a marginal environment, at least in the present market situation. This was beyond the scope of this study, and therefore recommendations can only be given concerning the overall performance and wood production of rubber.

It seems that while the wood production potential in northeastern Thailand is not drastically poorer than that of southern Thailand, differences between Malaysia and northeastern Thailand are already larger. Especially the recommended latex-timber clones in Malaysia seem to yield much larger volumes of clear bole than the clones observed in the present study. This is in line with previous experiences, since clones RRIM 600 and BPM 24 have been classified as high-yielding latex and not timber clones. No difference was found in the wood production potential between the two clones in northeastern Thailand. Clone BPM 24 was found to produce a longer clear bole and therefore to have a higher recovery rate than clone RRIM 600. This may be of interest to farmers who are considering combined latex-rubber wood production, given that latex yields of clone BPM 24 are comparable to those of clone RRIM 600.

Unfavourable climatic conditions would more easily affect the latex yield than the wood production capacity of rubber trees. Therefore, growing rubber for timber could have a potential in northeastern Thailand in particular, if the market prices for rubber wood would increase, thus making combined latex-timber or even timber-only production more profitable. High-yielding timber clones or latex-timber clones would be the ones best suited for cultivation in this case. Meanwhile, when latex prices are relatively high making the

57

production of natural rubber profitable in Thailand, establishing rubber plantations with highyielding latex clones is a practice to be preffered.

The income from smallholdings could be diversified using agroforestry and especially improved intercropping or rubber cultivation integrated with cattle or sheep herding. The profitability of these systems in northeastern Thailand needs more research. At present rubber monoculture was found to be the dominant practice in northeastern Thailand.

Rubber wood production still faces constraints in Thailand. One particular problem related to the quality of extractable material is the plantation establishment practice using budded stumps. Trees cultivated using seedlings could offer straighter stems, which would definitely be of interest if the goal is to produce wood of better quality. Apart from the planting material, also the latex tapping and management practices, especially the planting density, affect the amount and quality of extractable timber. These factors have to be considered when aiming for better rubber wood production. Planting density would probably be the most critical characteristic that would need to be altered, since a higher density would help in the development of straighter and clearer trunks.

Rubber growing is very labour-intensive and tapping has to be done at night. Maximum latex production is not necessarily a top priority for farmers, since there is the question of allocating labour in the most cost efficient way. A rubber plantation established for timber production alone, or joint latex and timber production could be a less labour-intensive option for Thailand and possibly the Northeast in particular, especially if the stumpage price for rubber wood will increase in the future.

58

REFERENCES
Angelsen, A. 1995. Shifting Cultivation and "Deforestation", a Study from Indonesia. World Development 23(10): 1713-1729. Anon. 2000. Rayong Workshop Proceedings- Workshop on "Technical Achievements and the Future", January 25.-26.2000, Rayong. Pp. 63-83. In: Royal Forest Department. 2000. Status of Rubberwood Utilization and Marketing in Thailand. Technical Report. Executing Agency, Forest Research Office, Royal Forest Department. 90 p. Arshad, N.L., Mohamad Hassan, M.J., Ibrahim, A.G., Mahayana Bongkik, D.Y.M. & Wahab, M.A. 1997. Viability of Hevea plantation for wood production. Pp. 41-57. In: Yahya, A.Z., Ghani, A.R.A., Mahat, M.N., Wahab, M.A., Wickneswari, R. and Mahmood, N.Z.N. (Editors) Proceedings of the Seminar on Commercial Cultivation of Teak, Sentang, Acacia and Hevea for Timber. Proceedings of the seminar 9.1.1997, Kuala Lumpur 1997. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 62 p. ISBN 938-9592-88-2 Balsiger, J., Bahdon, J. & Whiteman, A. 2000. The utilization, processing and demand for rubberwood as a source of wood supply. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study. Working paper series, Working paper No. ABFSOS/WP/50. Forestry Policy and Planning Division, Rome and Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. FAO, Rome. 56 p. [www-document] www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/003/Y0153E/Y0153E00.htm (Accessed December 2005) Chandrashekar, T.R., Nazeer, M.A., Marattukalam, J.G., Prakash, G.P., 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. Chaninthornsongkhla, S. 2005. Rubber Replanting Scheme in Thailand and Policy Implications. Presentation held in Rubber: Wood, Cropping and Research work shop. May 25.-27.2005, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. Chantuma, A., Maenmeun, S., Chantuma, P. & Paechana, P. 2005. Potential of Rubber Wood Production and Quality- Case productivity in the North, and tapped woods properties. Paper presented in Rubber: Wood, Cropping and Research work shop. May 25.-27.2005, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 7 p. Characterization of Established Soil Series in the Northeast Region of Thailand. Reclassified According to Soil Taxonomy 2003. Land Development Department of Thailand. Cherdchom, P., Prommee, P. & 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: 151-167. ISSN 0125-8370

Cilas, C., Costes, E., Milet, J., Lengnat, H., Gnagne, M. & Clment-Demange, A. 2004. 59

Characterization of branching in two Hevea brasiliensis clones. Journal of Experimental Botany 55(399): 1045-1051. Clment-Demange, A. 2004. Rubber: Wood, Cropping and Research- Rubberwood and biomass: adaptation of rubber cropping and rubber research in South-East Asia, Regional workshop for the building of a rubberwood research project, November 12.-14.2003. Scientific and Technical report. 23 p. Collins, N. M, Sayer, J. A. & Whitmore, T. C. (Editors) 1991. Conservation Atlas of Tropical Forests. Asia and the Pacific. The World Conservation Union. Macmillan, London. 256 p. ISBN 0-333-53992-3 Compagnon, P. 1987. Le Caoutchouc Naturel- Biologie, Culture, Production. Techniques Agricoles et Productions Tropicales. G.-P. Maisonneuve & Larose, Paris. 595 p. ISBN 27068-0910-8 Courtenay, P. P. 1979. Commercial Agriculture. Pp. 108-133. In: Sien, C.L., McGee, T.G., Osborne, M.E., Courtenay, P.P., Neville, W., Swan, B. South-East Asia: A Systematic Geography. Oxford University Press, Kuala Lumpur. 214 p. ISBN 0-19-580393-0 Doumbia, A., Oulaye, G., Saint-Andr, L., Leconte, A., Thaler, P., Lacote, R., Chapuset, T., Gohet, E., Eschbach, J.M. & Clment-Demange, A. 2005. Evolution of biomass production as related to growth, rubber yield, and loss of trees in a density trial of Cte d'Ivoire (Hevea brasiliensis). Paper presented in Rubber: Wood, Cropping and Research work shop. May 25.-27.2005, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 10 p. Evans, J. & Turnbull, J.W. 2004. Plantation Forestry in the Tropics. 3rd Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 467 p. ISBN 0-19-852994-5 FAO 2006. Faostat data, 2006. [www-document] http://faostat.fao.org (Accessed 16.9.2006) FAO 2005. State of the World's Forests 2005. 168 p. ISBN 9251051879 Gouyon, A. 2003. Eco-certification as an Incentive to Conserve Biodiversity in Rubber Smallholder Agroforestry Systems: A Preliminary Study. World Agroforestry Centre. Bogor. 51 p. [www-document] http://www.worldagroforestry.org/sea/Networks/RUPES/download/paper/AGouyon_Ecocertification.pdf (Accessed 10.4.2006) Grist, P., Menz, K. & Thomas. 1998. Modified BEAM Rubber Agroforestry Models: RRYIELD and RRECON. ACIAR Technical Reports Series 42. 43 p. ISBN 1-86320-225-0 Growing Multipurpose Trees on Small Farms. 1994. (2nd ed.) Forestry/Fuelwood Research and Development Project. Winrock International, Bangkok. 320 p. ISBN 0-933595-88-3 Hong, L. T. 1999. Introduction. Pp. 1-15. In: Hong, L.T & Sim, H.C. (Editors) 1999. Rubberwood- Processing and Utilisation. Malayan Forest Records 39. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 254 p. ISBN 983-9592-27-0

60

Jiang, A. 1988. Climate and natural production of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) in Xishuangbanna, southern part of Yunnan province, China. International Journal of Biometeorology, Vol. 32(4): 280-282. ISSN 0020-7128 Jones, K.P. & Allen, P.W. 1992. Historical development of the world rubber industry. Pp. 126. In: Sethuraj, M.R. & Mathew, N.M. 1992. Natural Rubber: Biology, Cultivation and Technology. Developments in Crop Science 23. Elsewier, Netherlands. 610 p. ISBN 0-44488329-0 Joshi, L. 2005. Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smallholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems: a project supported by the Common Fund for Commodities. 8 p. In: Appraisal meeting on Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smalholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems, September 5.-8.2005, Hat Yai. Scientific report. Joshi, L., Wibawa, G., Vincent, G., Boutin, D., Akiefnawati, R., Manurung, G., van Noordwijk, M. & Williams, S. 2002. Jungle Rubber: a traditional agroforestry system under pressure. International Centre for Research in Agroforestry (World Agroforestry Centre), Southeast Asia Regional Research Programme, Bogor. 38 p. ISBN 979-3198-04-4 Kadir, A.A.S.A. 1998. Viability of rubber plantations for the production of timbers. Pp. 6-20. In: Malik, A.R.A., Choon, L.M. 1998. Proceedings of the Colloquium on Rubberwood: Resources and Technologies, 23 March 1998, Kuala Lumpur. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 36 p. ISBN 983-9592-90-4 Kangas, A. & Pivinen, R. Metsn mittaus (Forest Mensuration) [In Finnish]. 2000. Silva Carelica 35. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry. 205 p. ISBN 951-708-956-1 Koteswaram, P. 1974. Climate and meteorology of humid tropical Asia. Pp. 27-85. In: Unesco. 1974. Natural resources of humid tropical Asia. Natural Resources research 12. Unesco, Paris. 456 p. ISBN 92-3-101055-7 Krishnakumar, A.K. & Potty, S.N. 1992. Nutrition of Hevea. Pp. 239-263. In: Sethuraj, M.R. & Mathew, N.M. (Editors) 1992. Natural Rubber: Biology, Cultivation and Technology. Developments in Crop Science 23. Elsewier, Netherlands. 610 p. ISBN 0-444-88329-0 Laasasenaho, J. 1982. Taper curve and volume functions for pine, spruce and birch. Ph.D Thesis. Communicationes Instituti Forestales Fenniae. 74 p. Land Development Department of Thailand, 2005a. Para-rubber (Thai economic crop) and soil suitable for planting in the East. [www-document] http://www.ldd.go.th/EFiles_project/article/article06.html (Accessed August 2005) Land Development Department of Thailand, 2005b. Soil doctor volunteers of Land Development Department and their participation in natural resources management. [www-document] http://www.ldd.go.th/new_webenglish/mordin.html (Accessed November 2005)

Lemmens, R.H.M.J., Soerianegora, I. &Wong, W.C. (Editors) 1995. PROSEA Plant 61

Resources of South-East Asia 5(2), Timber Trees: Minor Commercial Timbers. Backhuys, Leiden. 655 p. ISBN 90-73348-44-7 Luukkanen, O. 2001. The Vanishing and Reappearing Tropical Forest- Forest Management and Land Use in Thailand. Pp. 74-93. In: Myllyntaus, T. & Saikku, M. 2001. Encountering the Past in Nature. Ohio University Press, Athens. Mohd. Aris, B.M.N. 2005. The study of clones, planting densities, and rubber wood recovery for rubber forest plantation in Malaysia. Paper presented in Rubber: Wood, Cropping and Research work shop. May 25.-27.2005, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 19 p. Nataraja, K.N & Jacob, J. 1998. Clonal differences in photosynthesis in Hevea brasiliensis Mull. Arg. Photosynthetica 36(1-2): 89-98. Pendleton, R. L. 1962. Thailand- Aspects of Landscape and Life. An American Geographical Society Handbook. Duell, Sloan and Pearce, New York. 321 p. Peters, C. M. 1994. Sustainable Harvest of Non-Timber Plant Resources in Tropical Moist Forest: An Ecological Primer. Biodiversity Support Program Publications 39. World Wide Fund for Nature. [www-document] http://www.worldwildlife.org/bsp/bcn/learning/primer/eng1.htm (Accessed March 2006) Pratummintra, S. 2005. Rubber Research for Rubber Small Holder System: Current Issue in Thailand. A paper presented in Rubber: Wood, Cropping and Research work shop. May 25.-27.2005, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 7 p. Priyadarshan, P.M., Hoa, T.T.T., Huasun, H. & Goncedillalves, P.D.S. 2005. Yielding potential of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) in sub-optimal environments. Journal of Crop Improvement, 14(1-2): 221-247. ISSN 1542-7528 Raj, S., Das, G., Pothen, J. & Kumar Dey, S. 2005. Relationship between latex yield of Hevea brasiliensis and antecedent environmental parameters. International Journal of Biometeorology 49(3): 189-196. Ranta, E., Rita, H. and Kouki, J. 1989. Tilastotiedett ekologeille (Statistics for Ecologists) [In Finnish]. Yliopistopaino, Helsinki. 569 p. ISBN 951-570-032-9 Rao, G., Rao, P., Rajagopal, R., Devakumar, A.S., Vijayakumar, K.R. & Sethuraj, M.R. 1990. Influence of soil, plant and meteorological factors on water relations and yield in Hevea brasiliensis. International Journal of Biometeorology, Vol. 34(3): 175-180. ISSN 0020-7128. Rao, P. & Vijayakumar, K.R. 1992. Climatic Requirements. Pp. 200-220. In: Sethuraj, M.R. & Mathew, N.M. 1992. Natural Rubber: Biology, Cultivation and Technology. Developments in Crop Science 23. Elsewier, Netherlands. 610 p. ISBN 0-444-88329-0 Rao, P., Saraswathyamma, C.K., Sethuraj, M.R. 1996. Studies on the relationship between yield and meteorological parameters of para rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis). Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 90: 235-245. RFD (Royal Forest Department). 2000. Status of Rubberwood Utilization and Marketing in 62

Thailand. Technical Report. Executing Agency, Forest Research Office, Royal Forest Department. 90 p. RFD (Royal Forest Department). 2001. Forestry Statistical Data 2001. [www-document] http://www.forest.go.th/stat/stat.htm (Accessed January 2006) Rodrigo, V.H.L, Silva, T.U.K. & Munasinghe, E.S. 2005. Improving the spatial arrangement of planting rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) for long-term intercropping. Field Crops Research 89(2-3): 327-335. Rodrigo, V.H.L, Stirling, C.M, Silva, T.U.K. & Pathirana, P.D. 2004. The growth and yield of rubber at maturity is improved by intercropping with banana during the early strage of rubber cultivation. Field Crops Research 91(1): 22-33. Rubber Research Institute of Thailand. 2005. Natural Rubber in Thailand. Presentation held in the appraisal meeting on Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smalholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems. September 5.-8.2005, Hat Yai. Risnen, Matti. 1997. Hevea brasiliensisin tilavuuden ja biomassan estimointi (Estimation of volume and biomass of Hevea brasiliensis) [In Finnish]. M.Sc thesis. University of Helsinki. 42 p. Sangsing, K. 2004. Carbon acquisition and plant water status in response to water stress of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis). Ph.D thesis. Kasetsart University. 130 p. ISBN 974-274-410-6 Sekhar, A.C. 1992. Technical properties and utilisation of rubber wood. In: Sethuraj, M.R. & Mathew, N.M. 1992. Natural Rubber: Biology, Cultivation and Technology. Developments in Crop Science 23. Elsewier, Netherlands. 610 p. ISBN 0-444-88329-0 Soil map of Buriram province. [In Thai] Land Development Department of Thailand. Soil map of Chachoengsao province. [In Thai] Land Development Department of Thailand Soilview 2.0 CD-ROM. [In Thai] Land Development Department of Thailand. Urapeepatanapong, C. 1989. Production and Utilization of Para-rubber Wood in Thailand. Pp. 782-795. In: Recent Developments in Tree Plantations of Humid/Subhumid Tropics of Asia. Proceedings of a Regional Symposium, June 5.-9.1989, Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Pertanian Malaysia. Watson, G. A. 1989. Climate and soil. In: Webster, C.C. & Baulkwill, W.J. (Editors) 1989. Rubber. Longman, New York. 614 p. ISBN 0-582-40405-3 Webster, C.C. & Paardekooper, E.C. 1989. The botany of the rubber tree. In: Webster, C.C. & Baulkwill, W.J. (Editors) 1989. Rubber. Longman, New York. 614 p. ISBN 0-582-40405-3 Wibawa, G., Joshi, L., van Noordwijk, M. & Penot, E. 2005. Rubber Agroforestry System (RAS) Technologies: Opportunities for optimising smallholder rubber systems. 21 p. In: Appraisal meeting on Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smalholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems, September 5.-8.2005, Hat Yai, Thailand. Scientific report. 63

Wijaya, T., Grist, P. & Menz, K. 2005. Modelling of Rubber Growth as a Function of Climate. 15 p. Paper presented in the appraisal meeting on Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smalholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems. September 5.-8.2005, Hat Yai. Wikipedia. Provinces of Thailand. [www-document] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provinces_of_Thailand (Accessed 9.4.2006) Wikipedia. Thaimaa. [www-document, in Finnish] http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaimaa (Accessed 7.4.2006) Wiswanathan, P. K. & Shivakoti, P. G. 2005. Promotion of Rubber Agro Forestry Systems in India: Socio- Economic and Industrial Constraints and Development Potential. Presentation held in the appraisal meeting on Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smalholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems. September 5.-8.2005, Hat Yai. Wycherley, P. R. 1992. The genus Hevea- botanical aspects. Pp. 50-66. In: Sethuraj, M.R. & Mathew, N.M. 1992. Natural Rubber: Biology, Cultivation and Technology. Developments in Crop Science 23. Elsewier, Netherlands. 610 p. ISBN 0-444-88329-0 Xavier, R. 2004. Intensification of timber production in traditional rubber agroforestry systems. Final report presented in the appraisal meeting on Improving the Productivity of Rubber Smalholdings through Rubber Agroforestry Systems. September 5.-8.2005, Hat Yai. Yusoff, M.N.M. 1999. Pulp and paper from rubberwood. Pp. 203-208. In: Hong, L.T & Sim, H.C. (Editors) 1999. Rubberwood- Processing and Utilisation. Malayan Forest Records 39. Forest Research Institute Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur. 254 p. ISBN 983-9592-27-0 Personal communications Bhumibhamon, Suree. Associate Professor, Kasetsart University. 7.11.2005, Bangkok. Chantuma, Arak. Agricultural Scientist, Rubber Research Institute of Thailand. 30.8.2005, Chachoengsao. Pintha, Noo. Village soil doctor. 24.10.2005, Somprasong, Nong Khai. Sirianayu, Supote. Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund. 7.9.2005, Bangkok.

Appendix 1. 64

Provinces and areas of Thailand

Provinces of Thailand. Source: Wikipedia, www-document.

North 1. Chiang Mai 2. Chiang Rai 3. Kamphaeng Phet 4. Lampang 5. Lamphun 6. Mae Hong Son 7. Nakhon Sawan 8. Nan 9. Phayao 10. Phetchabun 11. Phichit 12. Phitsanulok 13. Phrae 14. Sukothai 15. Tak 16. Uthai Thani 17. Uttaradit Northeast 1. Amnat Charoen 2. Buriram 3. Chaiyaphum 4. Kalasin 5. Khon Khaen 6. Loei 7. Maha Sarakhan 8. Mukdahan 9. Nakhon Phanom 10. Nakhon Ratchasima 11. Nong Bua Lamphu 12. Nong Khai 13. Roi Et 14. Sakon Nakhon 15. Si Sa Ket 16. Surin 17. Ubon Ratchathani 18. Udon Thani 19. Yasothon Central 1. Ang Thong 2. Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya 3. Bangkok 4. Chainat 5. Kanchanaburi 6. Lop Buri 7. Nakhon Nayok 8. Nakhon Pathom 9. Nonthaburi 10. Pathum Thani 11. Phetchaburi 12. Prachuap Khiri Khan 13. Ratchaburi 14. Samut Prakan 15. Samut Sakhon 16. Samut Songkhram 17. Saraburi 18. Sing Buri 19. Suphan Buri

65

East 1. Chachoengsao 2. Chanthaburi 3. Chon Buri 4. Prachin Buri 5. Rayong 6. Sa Kaeo 7. Trat

South 1. Chumphon 2. Krabi 3. Nakhon Si Thammarat 4. Narathiwat 5. Pattani 6. Phang Nga 7. Phattalung 8. Phuket 9. Ranong 10. Satun 11. Songkhla 12. Surat Thani 13. Trang 14. Yala

66

Appendix 2. Questions presented to farmers Which rubber clone have you planted here? How big is the plantation in rai? How old is the plantation? When was latex tapping started and how old were the trees at that time? How often are these trees tapped? When do the trees shed their leaves and for how long? What is the planting density? What is the history of this plantation? Why did you decide to plant rubber trees? How did you use this land before planting rubber trees? Have you planted any food crops or forest trees to grow with rubber? If so, what crops or trees? When did you plant the crops or trees and how long did they grow with rubber? (if there are no crops present) What was your experience from planting agricultural crops or trees with rubber? Have you used this land as grazing land for animals? Have you had any problems with this rubber plantation?

67

Appendix 3. Statistical data on mean annual temperatures (Figure 1.) and extreme minimum temperatures (Figure 2.) in study areas (TMD 2005).
Mean annual temperatures in study areas
30 29,5 29

Buriram

Nongkhai

Chon Buri

degrees celcius

28,5 28 27,5 27 26,5 26 25,5 25 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04

Year

Figure 1.
Minimum temperatures in study areas
25 22,5 20

Buriram

Nongkhai

Chon Buri

degrees celcius

17,5 15 12,5 10 7,5 5 2,5 0 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04

Year

Figure 2.

68

Appendix 4. Volume estimates (cubic meters per hectare) for rubber plantings in the South and East of Thailand, according to RFD 1988. A polynomic regression was fitted in order to get estimates for volume for younger plantings.

South and East, volume (cubic m/ha) as related to age

220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

69

Appendix 5. Standard deviations of individual volumes of trees at plantings visited. Bole volume, exluding branches and leaves in figure 2 and clear bole volume in figure 3.
Standard deviation of wood volume of one tree, dm3
280

230

180

dm3

130

80

30

BB19

BR16

BR10

NB16

NR16

NB07

NR08

CB16

CR16

CB08

CR06

Plantation

Figure 4.
Standard deviation of clear bole volume of one tree, dm3
280

230

180

dm3
130 80 30

BB19

BR16

BR10

NB16

NR16

NB07

NR08

CB16

CR16

CB08

CR06

Plantation

Figure 5. Plantation abbreviations: BB19- Buriram, BPM 24, 19 years; BR16- Buriram, RRIM 600, 16 years; BR10Buriram, RRIM 600, 10 years; NB16- Nong Khai, BPM24, 16 years; NR16- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 16 years; NB07- Nong Khai, BPM 24, 7 years, NR08- Nong Khai, RRIM 600, 8 years; CB16- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, 16 years; CR16Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 16 years; CB08- Chachoengsao, BPM 24, years; CR06- Chachoengsao, RRIM 600, 6 years

70