Temporal and structural relations within bark and trunk in Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae): Physiological maturity index of bark and latex vessels

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/02/2012
Views (334) Download (6)

Temporal and structural relations within bark and trunk in Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. (Euphorbiaceae): Physiological maturity index of bark and latex vessels

Samuel Obouayeba1, Eric Francis Soumahin, Koffi Mathurin Okoma, Angelo Evariste Badou N’guessan, Lancina Fanlégué Coulibaly, Kouablan Edmond Koffi, Régis Lacote
Int. J. Biosci.2( 2), 56-71, February 2012.
Certificate: IJB 2012 [Generate Certificate]


In Africa and particularly in Côte d’Ivoire, the exploitation of Hevea brasiliensis clones having strong vegetative growth based on the criterion of vigour adopted so far has raised physiological and physical problems characterized by a high rate of tapping panel dryness and wind damage. A study was conducted on three clones of Hevea brasiliensis (PB 235, GT 1 and PR 107) belonging respectively to classes of fast, moderate and slow vegetative growth, in order to determine the right moment for an exploitation which would minimize those drawbacks. Trunk measurements, bark collecting and histological sections followed by laticifers counting made on rubber trees aged from one to fifteen years, have enabled to describe the process of establishment of bark and laticifers. The intensity of development and thickening of the bark and the rate of laticifer emission are described respectively by distinct hyperbolic and logistic sigmoid functions. However, their temporal evolution is strongly marked by an irreversible decrease of the whole process of formation, whatever the clone, from six years after planting. Furthermore, the density of laticifers per mm2 switches, whatever the clone studied, from a number greater than 5, the first six years (5-8 < Δlv <2) to 0.35 the next 25 years (2 < Δlv < 0.4). This evolution which is very significant the first six years varies relatively little the rest of time. These results show sixyears after planting a major phenologic phenomenon, like a physiological maturity, which occurs within the tree. This study has allowed identifying good indicators for determining the age and/or the time when plantations should be tapped in Hevea brasiliensis. These relationships have certain and practical interests insofar as they will allow to determine the maturity ofexploitation for plantations which age is unknown by using only a bark gauge to measure bark thickness and a measuring tape to measure the girth.


Bobilioff W. 1923. Anatomy and Physiology of Hevea brasiliensis. Part I Anatomy of Hevea brasiliensis. Art. Orell Fussli Zurich, p. 141.

Carron MP, Enjalric L, Lardet L, Deschamps A. 1989. Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.). In Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, vol. 5, Trees II (ed. by Y. P. S. Bajaj).

Compagnon P. 1986. Principes de la conduite de l’exploitation. In: Le caoutchouc naturel, Coste R. ed., G.P. Maisonneuve et Larose, Paris, 237-265.

Dian K, Sangaré A, Diopoh JK. 1995. Evidence for specific variation of protein pattern during tapping panel dryness condition development in Hevea brasiliensis. Plant Science 105, 207-216.

Franquin P. 1970. Modèles mathématiques de structures chez les végétaux, II. Relations de structure, Cahiers ORSTOM, série Biologie, 17, 3-21.

Gohet E. 1996. La production de latex par Hevea brasiliensis. Relation avec la croissance. Influence de différents facteurs : Origine clonale, stimulation hormonale, réserves hydrocarbonées. Thèse de doctorat d’Université, Université Montpellier II. Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, France, p. 343.

Gomez JB. 1983. Physiology of Latex (Rubber) Production, Malaysian Rubber Research and Board (MRRDB), Monograph n°8, Kuala Lumpur, p. 117.

Gomez JB. 1982. Anatomy of Hevea and its influence on latex production, Malaysian Rubber Research and Board (MRRDB), Monograph n°7, Kuala Lumpur, p. 76.

Gomez JB. 1975. Comparative ultracytology of young and mature latex vessels in Hevea brasiliensis. Proceedings of International Rubber Conference, Kuala Lumpur October 1975, vol. 2, 143-163.

Hallé F, Martin R. 1968. Etude de la croissance rythmique chez l’Hévéa (Hevea brasiliensis Müll.-Arg. Euphorbiacées-Crotonoïdées). Edition Adansonia, ser. 2, 8 (4), 475-503.

Hébant C, Devic C, De Fay E. 1981. Organisation fonctionnelle du tissu producteur de l’Hevea brasiliensis. Revue Générale des Caoutchoucs et Plastiques 614, 97-100.

Hébant C, De Fay E. 1980. Functional organisation of the bark of Hevea brasiliensis (rubber tree): a structural and histoenzymological study. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenphysiologie 97, 391-398.

Heller R. 1990. Abrégé de physiologie végétale, Tome 2. Développement, Ed. 4, Masson, p. 266.

Hénon JM. 1984. Recherche de critères anatomiques de sélection précoce chez Hevea brasiliensis Thèse de doctorat 3e cycle en Agronomie Option Phytotechnie, p. 178.

Hénon JM. 1980. Fondements théoriques et pratiques d’une étude histophysiologique de l’appareil producteur (laticifères et éléments associés du système secondaire) de l’Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. Mémoire de D.E.A.

Ho CT. 1975. Clonal characters determining the yield of Hevea brasiliensis. Proceedings of International Rubber Conference, Kuala Lumpur October 1975, vol. 2, 27-37.

Le Bras J. 1953. Eléments de Science et de technologie du caoutchouc. Institut Français du Caoutchouc. Société d’éditions techniques coloniales, Paris.

Meunier A. 1912. L’appareil laticifère des caoutchoutiers. Imprimerie Ind. et Fin., Bruxelles, p. 51.

Obouayeba S, Boa D,  Aké S, Lacrotte R. 2002. Influence of age and girth at opening on growth and productivity of Hevea. Indian Journal of Natural Rubber Research, 15 (1), 66-71.

Obouayeba S, Boa D, Aké S. 2000b. Critical age, Bark growth and latex vessel formation as attributes for determination of tapping norms. Indian Journal of Natural Rubber Research, 13(1 & 2), 38-45.

Obouayeba S, Boa D, Gohet E, Dian K, Ouattara N, Keli J. 2000a. Dynamics of vegetative growth of Hevea brasiliensis in the determination of tapping norms. Journal of Rubber Research, 3 (1), 53-62.

Ouattara N. 1998. Contribution à la détermination d’une norme de mise en saignée d’Hevea brasiliensis en Côte d’Ivoire : cas du clone GT 1. Mémoire de fin d’études pour l’obtention du Diplôme d’Agronomie Approfondie (D.A.A). Option production végétale (Agronomie), p. 33.

Premakumari D, Panikkar AON. 1992. Natural rubber: Anatomy and Ultracytology of latex vessels. In: Crop Science, n° 23, Elsevier (Amsterdam), 67-87.

Schultes RE. 1987. Studies in the Genus Hevea. VIII. Notes on Infraspecific variants of Hevea brasiliensis (Euphorbiaceae). Economic Botany, 41(2), 125-147.

Schultes RE. 1977. Wild Hevea: an untapped source of germplasm, Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka, 54, 227-257.

Schultes RE.1970. The history of taxonomic studies in Hevea, Botanical Review 36, 197-211.

Templeton JK. 1969. Partition of assimilates. Journal of Rubber Research Institute of Malaya 21, 259-273.

Sekhar AC. 1989. Growth, availability and present status. In: Rubber wood production and utilization. The Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam 686 009, Rubber Board, Ministry of Commerce and Supply, Government of India, p. 3-5.

Thomas V, Premakumari D, Reghu CP, Panikkar AON, Saraswathy ACK. 1995. Anatomical and histochemical aspects of bark regeneration in Hevea brasiliensis. Annals of Botany Compagny, 75, 421-426.

Webster CC, Paardekooper EC. 1989. The botany of the rubber tree. In Webster, C. C. And Baulkwill, W. J. (eds) Rubber, 57-84.

Wycherley PR. 1976. Tapping and partition J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia, 24(4), 169-194.