Efficient Tapping Systems of Hevea brasiliensis Clones with Active Metabolism IRCA 18, IRCA 111, IRCA 130, PB 235 and PB 260 in Côte d’Ivoire

In the southwest of Côte d’Ivoire, a study determining appropriate tapping systems for metabolically active clones (IRCA18, IRCA 111, IRCA 130, PB 235, and PB 260), the availability of tappers, and socio-economic conditions was conducted to take into account the vulnerability of metabolically active clones, which negatively affects their rubber productivity. There are six different tapping mechanisms. S/2 d2 6d/7 no stimulation; S/2 d3 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa1 (1) 4/y; S/2 d4 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa1 (1) 4/y; S/2 d4 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa1 (1) 8/y; S/2 d5 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa1 (1) 8/y; S/2 d5 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa1 (1) 8/y; S/2 d5 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa1 (1) 8/y; S/2 d6 d6 d6 d6 d6 d6 d6 d6 d6 In a randomised full block device with four replicates, 6d/7 ET2.5 percent Pa1 (1) 10/y was tested. Rubber yield, radial vegetative growth, and Tapping Panel Dryness (TPD) sensitivity were all measured. These clones are very active (2300 310 kg.ha-1) according to the results. As compared to the reference rate of clones with TPD, the average TPD rate (8.5%) is relatively poor. Since they are consumers of bark (short latex harvest time) and increase TPD, active metabolism is ideal for tapping systems from clones of this genus. The tapping systems S/2 d3 6d/7 ET2 on the other side. S/2 d4 6d/7 ET2; 5% Pa1 (1) 4/y; S/2 d4 6d/7 ET2. S/2 d5 6d/7 ET2; 5 percent Pa1 (1) 4/y; S/2 d5 6d/7 ET2. S/2 d6 6d/7 ET2 with 5% Pa1 (1) 8/y and S/2 d6 6d/7 ET2. 5 percent Pa1 (1) 10/y are best for tapping systems from metabolic clones active because they generate good rubber productivity while maintaining good vegetative growth with a low TPD. They also make it possible to effectively control the supply of tapper labour.

Author (s) Details

S. Obouayeba
Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (CNRA-Bimbresso), 01 BP 1536 Abidjan 01, Côte d’Ivoire.

M. Diarrassouba
UFR Biosciences, Université Félix Houphouët Boigny Cocody, 22 BP 582 Abidjan 22, Côte d’Ivoire.

E. F. Soumahin
UFR Agroforesterie, Laboratoire de Physiologie et de Pathologie Végétale, Université Jean Lorougnon Guédé, BP 150 Daloa, Côte d’Ivoire.

J. L. Essehi
Centre National de Recherche Agronomique (CNRA-LCSEP) Laboratoire Central Sols, Eaux et Plantes, 01 BP 633 Bouaké 01, Côte d’Ivoire.

M. K. Okoma
Centre National de Recherches Agronomiques (CNRA-LCB), Laboratoire Central de Biotechnologie, 01 BP 1740 Abidjan 01, Côte d’Ivoire.

C. B. Y. Adou
UFR des Sciences de la Nature, Laboratoire de Biologie et Amélioration Végétale, Université Nangui Abrogoua, 01 BP 801 Abidjan 01, Côte d’Ivoire.

A. P. Obouayeba
UFR Agroforetry, Laboratory of Agrovalorisation, Departement of Biochemistry-Microbiology, Jean Lorougnon Guédé University of Daloa, BP 150 Daloa, Côte d’Ivoire.

View Book :- https://stm.bookpi.org/CRAS-V6/issue/view/59

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous post Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Rainfall Distribution on Cassava Yield in Coastal and Upland Areas of Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria
Next post Fodder Crop Farming Sustainability Groundwater Management and Risk Management Efficiency