The analysis of planting density of rubber in small holdings for the period 2004-2010 indicated multifaceted features over time. In the traditional belt, except in North Kerala, the planting density of new planting was higher than that of replanting. After the release of RRII 400 series in the year 2005, significantly higher planting density was adopted for it in South Kerala. In all other regions, no significant difference in planting density was noticed between RRII 105 and RRII 400 series in the case of new planting, but higher density was adopted for replanting of RRII 105. An inverse relationship was observed between the size of holdings and planting density

George, K. Tharian

Joseph, Joby

Siju, T.

Veeraputhran, S.

English

Update Publishing (E-Journals)

Planting density in rubber smallholdings425Research Article Journal of Plantation Crops, 2013, 41(3): 425-427AbstractThe analysis of planting density of rubber in small holdings for the period 2004-2010 indicated multifaceted featuresover time. In the traditional belt, except in North Kerala, the planting density of new planting was higher than that ofreplanting. After the release of RRII 400 series in the year 2005, significantly higher planting density was adopted for itin South Kerala. In all other regions, no significant difference in planting density was noticed between RRII 105 andRRII 400 series in the case of new planting, but higher density was adopted for replanting of RRII 105. An inverserelationship was observed between the size of holdings and planting density.Keywords: Natural rubber, planting density, size of holding, traditional regionTrends in adoption of planting density in rubbersmallholdings in the traditional regions of IndiaT. Siju*, S. Veeraputhran, Joby Joseph and K. Tharian GeorgeEconomics Division, Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam - 686 009(Manuscript Received: 18-03-13, Revised: 14-08-13, Accepted: 02-09-13)IntroductionPlanting density of rubber determines theyield and the cost of tapping (Barlow and Lim,1967). It also affects the duration of juvenile period(Westgarth and Buttery, 1965) and incidence of paneldiseases (Napitupulu, 1977; Leong and Yoon, 1982).However, there exists an implicit divergencebetween scientist’s perception on density based onmaximum yield per tree and growers’ pragmatismin maximising yield per unit area was noticed byTengwall, (1945) in the case of rubber smallholdingsin Indonesia.The current recommended planting densityby the Rubber Board India is 420-500 plants perhectare (Rubber Board, 2012). However, the growersplant more to maximize yield per unit area. Thepresent study is taken up to examine the trends inplanting density in the context of the release of newhigh yielding clones (RRII 400 series) in 2005.Planting density adopted for new planting andreplanting was also compared.Materials and methodsIn India, the traditional rubber growing regionextends from Kanyakumari district of Tamil Nadu inthe South to Coorg district of Karnataka in the North(8° to 12° N). The traditional region is further subdivided into six, based on the soil and agro-climaticconditions as shown in Table 1 (Pushpadas andKarthikakuttyamma, 1980).The present study is confined to Kerala andTamil Nadu covering 26 Regional Offices of theRubber Board. The database pertaining to thegrowers who availed subsidy under the RubberPlantation Development (RPD) Scheme of theRubber Board during the seven year period from2004 to 2010 was used. It covered 1,30,658 RPDpermits with an area of 57,369.67 ha. The seven yearperiod of the study was purposely chosen to capturethe status of adoption of planting density during thepre RRII 400 series release phase (2004-05) and toobserve the trends in its post-release phase (2006-10).*Corresponding Author: hellosiju@gmail.comSiju et al.426The z-test was used to compare a samplemean to a known population mean (µ) to determinewhether the difference between the means wasstatistically significant (Hoshmand, 1988).                where,  and  are the means of the twosamples, ∆ is the hypothesized difference betweenthe population means (0 if testing for equal means),σ1 and σ2 are the standard deviations of the twopopulations, and n1 and n2 are the sizes of the twosamples.One way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD(honestly significant difference) test was used forcomparing planting density adopted for differentholding size-classes using the statistical software R.Results and discussionIn all the regions of the traditional belt,planting density has significantly increased from2004 to 2010 which coincided with the release ofnew high yielding RRII 400 series clones (Table 2).Planting density was found to be 8 to 26 per centhigher than the recommended during the period. Inall the regions planting density adopted for newplanting was higher than replanting except in thecase of North Kerala, where the reverse wasobserved.Analysis of clone-wise adoption of plantingdensity has revealed adoption of significantly higherplanting density for RRII 400 series in both newplanting and replanting in South Kerala. In all otherregions planting density adopted for these cloneswere on par for new planting. However, forreplanting higher density was adopted for RRII 105in Central, North-Central and North Kerala.Thus, though the increase in planting density(Table 2) coincided with the release of RRII 400series in the traditional belt, the increase in plantingdensity could not be fully attributed to its release(Table 3). From a policy perspective, theseobservations warrant further investigations toidentify the guiding factors.Table 1. The traditional rubber growing belt in IndiaRegion DistrictsKanyakumari KanyakumariSouth Kerala Trivandrum, Kollam and PathanamthittaCentral Kerala Alapuzha, Kottyam, Idukki and ErnakulamNorth-Central Kerala Trichur and PalakkadNorth Kerala Kannur, Kozhikkode and MalappuramKarnataka South Canara**The Karnataka region in not included in the present studyTable 2. Rubber planting density (plants ha-1) in the traditionalgrowing areas during the pre and post-release phases of RRII400 series    Region New Planting Replanting2004-05 2009-10 2004-05 2009-10Kanyakumari 619 627 NS 598 603 **South Kerala 604 633 ** 587 618 **Central Kerala 552 566 ** 543 550 **North-Central Kerala 551 555 ** 541 547 **North Kerala 544 552 ** 548 554 ****Significant at 1%; NS: Non-significantTable 3. Average planting density (plants ha-1) of RRII 105 andRRII 400 series (2006-10)  Region New planting ReplantingRRII RRII 400 RRII RRII 400105 series 105 seriesKanyakumari 627 629 NS 606 603 NSSouth Kerala 629 652 * 615 626 *Central Kerala 567 564 NS 551 548 *North-Central Kerala 555 558 NS 549 539 *North Kerala 552 552 NS 554 550 **Significant at 1%; NS: Non-significantAnalysis of size class-wise adoption ofplanting density revealed significant variationamong the density adopted in different size-classes(Table 4). The highest density was observed in thesmallest size-class of ≤0.5 ha while the lowest wasfound in the largest size class. Thus an inverserelationship is evident between the adoption ofhigher planting density and size of holdings.Kanyakumari and South Kerala regions hadrelatively higher average planting density among theregions. This could be attributed to the fact that bulkof the plantings in these two regions took place inthe smallest size-class (Table 5). This alsostrengthens the theory of inverse relationshipbetween size of holdings and adoption of higherPlanting density in rubber smallholdings427planting density in the traditional belt. This couldbe as a result of farmers’ efforts to maximize returnsper unit area of land in a scenario where land is themost limiting factor owing to sub division andfragmentation of holdings.Table 4. Holding class-wise average planting density (plants ha-1)across regions (2004-10)Planting category Region Holding class (ha)≤ 0.5 >0.5-1 >1-2New Planting Kanyakumari 629c 608b 586aSouth Kerala 628b 587a 569aCentral Kerala 567c 540b 522aNorth-Central Kerala 560c 541b 535aNorth Kerala 554c 539b 532aReplanting Kanyakumari 612c 590b 569aSouth Kerala 618c 586b 566aCentral Kerala 557c 532b 517aNorth-Central Kerala 555c 538b 528aNorth Kerala 560c 541b 530aOverall Kanyakumari 621c 595b 572aSouth Kerala 621c 586b 566aCentral Kerala 559c 532b 518aNorth-Central Kerala 558c 540b 532aNorth Kerala 556c 540b 531aNote: Planting density followed by a common alphabet in a region is notsignificantly different at p < 0.05trend. Land being the most limiting factor in thetraditional region, an inverse relationship wasobserved between adoption of planting density andsize of holdings, as farmers’ attempted to maximisereturns per unit area. The observations emanatingfrom the study underline the farmers’ attempt tomaximize returns in the short-run with the attendantpolicy implications on adoption of recommendedagro-management practices and changing life cycleprofile of plantations in the smallholdings.ReferencesBarlow, C.H. and Lim, S.C. 1967. Effect of density of plantingon the growth, yield and economic exploitation ofHevea brasiliensis: Part II. The effect on profit. Journalof Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia 20(1): 44-64.Leong, W. and Yoon, P.K. 1982. Modification of crowndevelopment of Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. bycultural practices: 2. Tree density. Journal of RubberResearch Institute of Malaysia 30(3): 123-130.Napitupulu, L.A. 1977. Planting density experiment on cloneAVROS 2037. Bulletin Balai Penelitian PerkebunanMedan 8(3): 99-104.Pushpadas, M.V. and Karthikakuttyamma, M. 1980.Agroecological requirements, In: Handbook of NaturalRubber Production in India. (Ed). Radhakrishna Pillay,P.N, Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, pp.87-109.Hoshmand, A.R. 1988. Statistical Methods for Environment andAgricultural Sciences, Second Edition, University ofHawaii, West Oahu, CRC Press, Boca Raton, New York.pp. 163-168.Rubber Board. 2012. Rubber Grower’s Companion. RubberResearch Institute of India, Kottayam. p. 9.Tengwall, T.A. 1945. The history of rubber cultivation andresearch in Netherlands Indies. In: Science and Scientistin the Netherlands Indies. (Eds.) Honig, P. and F.Verdroon, Board for the Netherlands Indies, New York.pp. 344-351.Westgarth P.R. and Buttery B.R. 1965. The effect of density ongrowth, yield and economic exploitation of Heveabrasiliensis. Part I. The effect on growth and yield.Journal of Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia 19(1):62-73.Table 5. Size class-wise share of holdings (%) (2004-10)Regions Size-class (ha)≤ 0.5 >0.5-1 >1-2Kanyakumari 77.38 14.55 8.07South Kerala 79.60 15.72 4.68Central Kerala 69.87 23.56 6.57North-Central Kerala 64.40 23.93 11.67North Kerala 68.60 22.73 8.67ConclusionThe analysis revealed an increasing trend inplanting density in the traditional belt. The plantingdensity adopted was much higher than therecommended. Though the increase in plantingdensity coincided with the release of new highyielding clones, it was not the sole factor behind the

Trends in adoption of planting density in rubber smallholdings in the traditional regions of India

https://updatepublishing.com/journal/index.php/JPC/article/download/5860/5140/

Trends in adoption of planting density in rubber smallholdings in the traditional regions of India

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Update Publishing (E-Journals)