INTRODUCTION

The Malaysian rubber industry spread out over 1.46 million hectares (Min. Primary
Industries, 2000) encompasses a gamut of soils, landscape conditions, microclimate and
clones. Variations within these factors are known to influence the growth and yield of
rubber. The variation of soil series in influencing biomass production (Lim, 1977) and yield
(Chan and Pushparajah, 1972; Yew, 1992) is well known. Similarly, the differences in
landscape features (Chan el al, 1974), microclimate (Dijkman, 1951; Yew, 1982) and
clones (RRIM, 1998) in varying Hevea growth and yield are also well documented. These
features will determine the value of the rubber tree as a carbon sink since the amount of
carbon fixed depends on the biomass production and its ability or efficiency to fix carbon.
Zahar et al (1987) have shown that the last factor mentioned is a clonal characteristic;
clones like RRIM 600 and PB 235 being able to fix more carbon than clones like PR 261.
A working group has been set up at SIRIM to document the principles and
guidelines for the monitoring, measuring, verifying, certifying and reporting of greenhouse
gasses emissions. The contribution of this paper is to document the methods used to
quantify carbon sequestration in rubber. Some case studies are also presented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study is conducted by a literature search. The amount of carbon fixed by the
rubber tree is determined by multiplying the plant dry weight by the concentration of
carbon, in percentage, of the plant tissue.
The carbon is sequestered in the following rubber tree organs namely
1) Tree biomass
2) Annual leaf, branch and fruit fall and
3) Rubber yield measured as latex and scrap.
The methods used to obtain the dry weights of the three materials mentioned, and
how these results are used to estimate the amount of carbon sequestered in the
rubber tree will be described in the following sections.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Methods used
The amount of carbon sequestered is obtained by multiplying plant dry weight with
its carbon concentration.
Plant Biomass Determination
This is often done by destructive sampling when the whole tree is felled and the tree
divided into different sections. The fresh weights of these sections are obtained. Sub-
samples are then taken for dry weight estimations.
The rubber trees are felled and then divided into four principal components viz.
leaves, branches, stems and roots. This is the common method adopted by the
researchers eg. Shorrocks (1965), Lim (1977), Sivanadyan and Ghandimathi (1985) and
Yew (2000) to study the biomass production of Hevea. However, some variation is
encountered in the definition for the types of branches as seen in Table 1. Such variation
in defining branch terminology is not very important, as they still account for all the
branches present on the tree as seen in Figure 1.
Similarly, while Shorrocks (1965) considers the root collar or union as part of the
trunk, other researchers such as Lim (1977), Sivanadyan and Ghandimathi (1985) and
Yew (2000) consider the union as part of the roots. Thus Shorrocks (1965) finds that the
roots comprise only 15% of the biomass, while Yew (2000) finds that the roots form 16.5%
of the total tree biomass.
Soong (1970) has developed a method of determining the amount of fine and
medium size feeder roots by using an auger which has an internal diameter of 10 cm and
welded to a 67 cm shaft which is graduated at 7.5 cm intervals.
A single tree is sampled by taking ten points, with five on either side of the tree. At
each sampling point, different soil depths are taken, up to 40 cm below the soil surface.
The soil cores collected from the field are kept in cloth bags, taken to the laboratory,
washed and sorted for roots. The root density is expressed as grams of dry roots per
cubic foot of soil.
Biomass Dry Matter Determination
Two methods have been used. The most common method is to obtain fresh
weights of all the plant parts. Sub-samples are then taken for oven dry weight
measurements and these oven dry weights are used to calculate the oven dry weights of
all the plant organs sampled. This method has been adopted by Shorrocks (1965), Lim
(1977) Sivanadyan and Ghandimathi (1985) and Yew (2000).
In addition, Yew (2000) has also used a method to measure the volume of the
trunks and branches and then relating them to weights. This method provides a quicker
way to estimate tree biomass. In this method, the plant organs are separated into the
various plant parts. The volume of the branches and trunks, is recorded by initially sawing
them into pieces of wood or log, 30 cm long. The volume is estimated for each piece of
wood by using the truncated cone formula as follows : Volume = n/12 [D1 + D2]
2
- D1D2]
L where D1 is the large end volume, D2 is the small end volume and L is the length of the
log. A smaller piece of wood about 2.5 cm thick is then sawn off from each log and the
volumes of these representative samples are recorded. These samples are then oven
dried and their weights recorded. The oven dry weights and the volumes are then used to
estimate the weights of the whole trunk and branches. The fresh weights of the leaves,
twigs, tertiary branches and other root parts (tap and secondary roots) are measured since
volume measurements are not recorded for these samples. A representative sample is
taken from each of these plant parts after recording their fresh weights and the oven dry
weights of these samples are used to calculate the total oven dry weights of these tissues.
Table 1 : Plant parts used to determine rubber tree biomass
^\ Source
Plant parts ^\
Roots : Collar +
Tap roots
Lateral
Roots
Trunk
Primary branch
Secondary branch
Tertiary branch
Quarternary branch
Quinternary branch
Green branches
Leaves + petioles
Shorrocks
(1965)
*
s/
Remaining
branches
Green
branches
Lim
(1977)
v
^
<
Other
branches
v'
v'
Sivanadyan
&
Ghandimathi
(1985)
*
^^
^A
-
*
*
-
-
Yew
(2000)
-
-
v'
V
Twigs
v'
Organic Carbon Determination
After the sub-samples have been used for oven dry weight estimations, they are
ground and analysed for their carbon content using Wakley and Black's Rapid Titration
Method (Piper, 1950). In this method, the carbon present as organic matter in 0.2 g of
ground plant sample is estimated by oxidising it with a known excess of a solution of
potassium dichromate in concentrated sulphuric acid and back titrating the potassium
dichromate with a standard solution of ferrous ammonium sulphate using diphenylamine
as an internal indicator.
Leaf Fall Measurement
The method of Tan (1975) is described. A container measuring 1 mx1 mx1m,
made up of wire netting of 2 cm mesh is used. The container has 4 wooden legs with a 15
cm clearance from the ground.
Two units are placed in the interrows of the rubber trees and leaf litter is collected
fortnightly. The fresh weight is taken. A sub sample is dried at 75 - 80C and its moisture
content determined.
Determination of Yield of Rubber Tree
The wet weight of the latex for each tapping is first obtained. The dry rubber
content of this latex is obtained by using a metrolac, which is a form of hydrometer, as
described by Abu Bakar (1985).
The cup lump or scrap rubber yield is obtained by measuring its weight. The dry
weight is obtained after the moisture content is determined.
Case Studies
Carbon Sequestration Studies in Rubber
Carbon is fixed in the following Hevea tree tissues. These are
1) Tree biomass, inclusive of aerial and subaerial portions
2) Leaf fall as a result of wintering
3) Branch fall
4) Seed fall and
5) Latex production
As no concerted studies per se have been made to study the amount of carbon
sequestered by Hevea, values of carbon sequestered by Hevea (Wan and Sivakumaran,
1998; Sivakumaran et al, 1999) have been arrived at based on estimation. The amounts
of carbon fixed in the various rubber tree organs are as follows.
Carbon Fixed in Tree Biomass
The dry matter production increases with tree age as seen in Table 2. For RRIM
501, the weight increases from 2.84 kg/tree on the first year to 1095.6 kg/tree on the 24
th
year.
The tree dry weight also differs between clones. The seedling Tjir 1 weighs five
times more than the clone RRIM 600 at the time of felling which is on the 33
rd
year for Tjir
1 and at the 34
th
year for RRIM 600.
Table 2 : Dry matter production of rubber trees according to age (kg/tree)
\sClone
AgeX.
1
3
5
7
1
/
2
10
15
24/25
30
33/34
RRIM
501
2.84a
38.71a
153.92a
-
968.72a
-
1095.60a
-
-
TJIR
1
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2118.83a
RRIM
600
_
45.3c
-
-
-
473.605b
-
350d
41 9d
PB
260
_
28.8c
168.9e
246.0e
-
-
513d
-
-
PB
235
_
35.0c
172.7e
-
-
-
-
-
-
PB
330
_
14.1c
123.2e
-
-
-
-
--
-
Source : a : Shorrocks (1965); b : Lim (1977); c : Sivanadyan and Ghandimathi (1985); d :
Yew (2000), e : Zulkipli (private communication)
Notes : (1) Number of trees sampled is 1 - 3 for a, 1 for b, 3 - 5 for c, 3 for d an'd 15 for
e.
(2) For (a), trees at 24
th
and 33
rd
year, root weight was estimated as 15% of
weight of tree.
(3) For (c) and (e) roots were not extracted. Weights presented are whole tree
dry weights, with root weights estimated as 15% of the weight of tree.
6
At the time of felling, a rubber land with 270 trees/ha, contains 158 tonnes/ha of
biomass and this locks up 72.3 tonnes of carbon as seen in Table 3. The big bulk of the
weight is concentrated in the tree trunk and primary branches. Together they form 56% of
weight of the whole tree. These are the main portions of the tree which are removed from
the field to be processed as Hevea wood.
Table 3 : Dry matter and carbon content of rubber trees at felling
^"^^^^<C rite ri a
Plant organ ^^~^\^^
Leaves
Twigs
Secondary branch
Primary branch
Trunk
Roots
Total
Dry weight
(tonnes/ha)
2
16
25
42
47
26
158
Carbon fixed
(kg/ha)
1,035
7,335
11,565
18,945
21,465
11,988
72,333
Source : Yew (2000)
Notes : Stand of 270 trees/ha
Weights are means of 6 sites at 3 trees per site
Average age of trees is 29 years
The balance 44% of the weight of the tree which contains the leaves, twigs,
secondary branches and roots is left to decay on the ground and contribute to soil organic
carbon. Although Chan (1999) has shown that the greatest contribution to soil organic
carbon is from the feeder root system due to its continual rapid growth, death and decay;
this cannot be verified for the rubber tree since these studies have been done. However,
the technique of measuring root density by using an auger (Soong, 1970) may be useful for
such studies.
Carbon Fixed in Annual Leaf Fall
The annual leaf litter fall of GTI is 2359 kg/ha/yr on unmanured plots and 2862
kg/ha/yr on manured plots (Tan, 1975). These values are much lower than that reported by
Shorrocks (1965) who found that 3700 to 7700 kg/ha of leaf litter, consisting of lamina and
petioles, falls in a year. The leaf litter of Tan (1975) consists of leaf laminae only. The
petioles are excluded and they form 15% of the leaf litter.
Table 4 : Estimated carbon fixed in annual leaf fall litter
Parameter Value
Dry matter 3291 kg/ha/yr (a)
Carbon content 47.1% (b)
Amount of C fixed 1550 kg/ha/yr
Total amount of C fixed over 22 years 34,100 kg/ha
Source : a : Tan (1975) b : Tan & Pushparajah (1985)
Notes : 1) Dry matter includes laminae and petioles
The amount of carbon fixed in the annual leaf fall of mature rubber trees, before
felling at the 29
th
year, is estimated to be 34,100 kg/ha as seen in Table 4. Immature
rubber trees do not undergo an annual wintering and the amount of leaf fall has not been
studied. Hence, the amount of carbon fixed in the fallen leaves of the immature rubber
trees has not been included in the estimation but this is not expected to be large.
Carbon in Annual Branch Fall
The annual branch fall has not been studied and the amount of carbon fixed is,
therefore, unknown.
Carbon in Seed Fall
Shorrocks (1965) has estimated an annual fruit fall of 160 kg per hectare. This will
amount to 3,520 kg/ha over a 22 year period of maturity. The amount of carbon fixed in
the fruits has not been studied.
Carbon in Latex and Cuplumps
The annual average production of rubber per tree for clones RRIM 600 and GTI,
over a 25 year period is 1680 kg/ha/yr (Sivakumaran et al, 1999). Based on an economic
life period of 22 years, the amount of carbon fixed in latex and cuplumps is 32.5 tonnes/ha
as shown in Table 5.
Table 5 : Amount of carbon fixed in latex and cuplumps
Item Amount
(tonnes/ha)
Total rubber produced
Total carbon fixed*
36.96
32.52
Source : Sivakumaran et al (1999)
Notes : * Based on assumption that carbon is 88% of the basic isoprene unit.
Total Amount of Carbon Sequestered in a Hectare of Rubber
The total amount of carbon sequestered in a hectare of 29 year old rubber trees at
the time of felling is given in Table 6. About 139 tonnes of carbon are fixed in a hectare of
rubber land. This figure excludes the contributions from the following organs which have
not been studied, namely,
a) feeder roots of rubber
b) annual branch fall
c) annual seed fall
Table 6 : Total amount of carbon sequestered by a hectare of rubber trees
Plant organ
Tree biomass
Leaf fall
Branch fall
Seed fall
Rubber produced
Total
Amount (tonnes/ha)
72.3
34.1
Nd
Nd
32.5
138.9
Stand : 270 trees/ha
In an earlier study, Sivakumaran et al (1999) estimated that 318.7 tonnes of
carbon are sequestered in one hectare of rubber trees. The greatest discrepancy
between the results from this study and that of Sivakumaran et al (1999) lies in the leaf
litter and branches. Sivakumaran et al postulated that all the branches, smaller than the
quaternary branches inclusive, will fall down annually. They estimated that the carbon
sequestered by the leaves and smaller branches is 209.3 tonnes/ha.
Fast Methods of Estimating Carbon Sequestration
Girth
Shorrocks et al (1965) have realized that it is rarely practicable to fell and
weigh trees at intervals in order to determine tree growth. They have, thus, related shoot
(ie. all above-ground parts), dry weights and girth is as follows:
Y = 2.7826 X - 2.5843 where Y denotes log shoot dry weight (kg) and X
denotes log girth (cm)
Earlier, Constable (1955) has related total tree weight (Ib) and girth (in) by
the regression equation :
Log weight = 2.408 log girth - 0.355
Diameter/Height Functions
In forestry, dendrometers (Cailliez, 1980) have been used to estimate forest
volume and yield prediction. A dendrometer ruler is a ruler equipped with a plumb line
attached to one corner. Diameter/height functions are then obtained. Similar techniques,
although not tried for rubber, have potentialities as quick methods.
Leaf Area Index
Hemispherical photography has been used to estimate leaf area index (LAI).
For rubber, a good correlation has been obtained between LAI obtained from
hemispherical pictures and LAI obtained from in situ litter collection of Hevea (Leong et al,
1982). LAI can be used to estimate dry matter production of the aerial portion of the
trees.
Remote Sensing Methods
Earth observing satellites are playing an increasing role in the evaluation,
extent of degradation and depletion of renewable natural resources. Added to this the
computer revolution has given a new tool for analysing satellite imagery. Once data is
converted into digital format, they can be integrated with conventional information
contained in maps and tables and it becomes possible to build predictive models under
the geographic information systems (GIS), as pointed out by Mohan (1991). Hence, the
1 0
use of simple aerial photography to measure height of trees (Kilford, 1973) and the use of
LANDSAT and CIS to estimate dry matter production may be possible for rubber.
CONCLUSIONS
The amount of carbon sequestered in a rubber planting over one life cycle of 29
years, i.e. form the time of planting in the field until the time of felling, varies from 139 to
319 tonnes per hectare. These differences are attributed to a lack of information on the
exact amount of annual leaf, branch and seed fall. It is also known that a lot of feeder
roots are produced over the life cycle of the rubber tree. As these have not been
measured, the amount of carbon fixed by them is unknown.
The present methods of obtaining tree biomass by destructive sampling and
obtaining dry weight from weight or volume measurements are time consuming. It is felt
that other rapid methods such as relating (a) tree girth and/or height and (b) remote
sensing techniques, with biomass production need to be explored.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to Dato' Abdul Hamid Syawal (Director-General,
Malaysian Rubber Board) for his permission to present the paper. Dr. Ismail Hashim
(Director of Production Development Division, Malaysian Rubber Board) and Dr. Zainol
Eusof (Head of Crop Management Unit, Malaysian Rubber Board) are thanked for their
critical review of this paper as well as their support during the preparation of the paper.
We also thank En. Zulkefly Sulaiman for providing us some of his unpublished data. The
painstaking efforts of Miss Zadariah Noh for typing this paper is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Abu Bakar, H.A. (1985). Teknologi Getah Asli, RRIM, pp 477.
Cailliez, F. (1980). Forest volume estimation and yield prediction. Vol 1 - volume
estimation. FAO Forestry paper 22/1, pp 98.
Chan, K.W. (1999). GHG projects in practice: An Asian case study. Mal Palm Oil Ind, 1-3.
Chan, H.Y. and Pushparajah, E. (1972). Productivity potentials of Hevea on West
Malaysian soils. Proc. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia Plrs. Conf., Kuala Lumpur, 97-126.
Chan, H.Y., Wong, C.B., Sivanadyan, K. and Pushparajah,E.(1974). Influence of soil
morphology and physiography on leaf nutrient content and performance of Hevea. Proc.
Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia Plrs. Conf., Kuala Lumpur, 115- 126.
Constable, D.H. (1955). Girth and growth measurements as an aid to manurial diagnosis
in tropical horticulture. Rep. XlVth Int. Hort. Congr. 1955, 2, 1346.
1 1
Dijkman, M.J. (1951). Hevea: Thirty years of research in the Far East. Coral Gables,
Florida, pp 329.
Kilford, W.K. (1973). Elementary air survey. Pitman Publishing, U.K, pp 363.
Leong, W., Lemeur, R. and Yoon P.K. (1982). Characterisation of leaf index and canopy
light penetration of Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. by hemispherical photography. J of
RRIM. 30(2), 80-90.
Lim, T.S. (1977). Nutrient uptake of clone RRIM 600 in relation to soil influence and
fertilizer needs. Proc. Nat. Rubb. Conf. Kuala Lumpur 1977, 166-185.
Ministry of Primary Industries (2000). Statistics on commodities 1999, pp 192.
Mohan, S.R. (1991). Remote sensing and geographic information system for natural
resource management. Asian Dev. Bank, pp 202.
Piper, C.S. (1950). Soil and plant analysis. Univ. Adelaide.
RRIM (1998). Planting of latex timber clones. Plrs. Bull.3, 1-46.
Shorrocks, V.M. (1965). Mineral nutrition, growth and nutrient cycle of Hevea brasiliensis.
I. Growth and nutrient content. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 19,(1), 32-47.
Shorrocks, V.M., Templeton, J.K. and lyer, G.C. (1965). Mineral nutrition, growth and
nutrient cucle of Hevea brasiliensis. III. The relationship between girth and shoot dry
weight. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 19,(2), 85-92.
Sivakumaran, S., Yew, F.K., Johari, H. and Wan A. R. (1999). Carbon sequestration in
rubber: Implications and economic models to fund continued cultivation, pp 25.
Sivanadyan, K. and Ghandimathi H. (1985). Influence of nitrogen fertilization on various
aspects of tree development in Hevea brasiliensis. Proc. Nat. Rubb. Conf. Kuala Lumpur
1985, 610-638.
Soong, N.K. (1970). A study of the root distribution of Hevea brasiliensis in relation to its
nutrition and growth on some typical Malayan Soils. M. Agr. Sc. Thesis, Univ. Malaya, pp
79.
Tan, K.H. (1975). Hevea leaf litter fall and chemical changes during litter decomposition.
Proc. 3
rd
ASEAN Soil Conf.,Kuala Lumpur, 147-157.
Tan, K.H. and Pushparajah, E. (1985). Studies on nitrogen soils V. Mineralisation of leaf
litter nitrogen and its availability to rubber seedlings. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaysia. 33(1),
26-36.
Wan A. R. and Sivakumaran, S. (1998). Studies on carbon sequestration in rubber.
UNCTAD/IRSG Rubb. Forum, Bali, Indonesia, pp 66.
1 2
Yew, F.K. (1982). Contributions towards the development of a land evaluation system for
Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. cultivation in Peninsular Malaysia. Dr. Sc. Thesis Univ.
Ghent, Belgium, pp 327
Yew, F.K. (1992). Soil suitability for rubber cultivation : Rubb. Res. Inst. Mal., Plrs. Bull.,
207,47-51.
Yew, F.K. (2000). Impact of zero burning on biomass and nutrient turnover in rubber
replanting. International Symposium on Sustainable Land Management, Sri Kembangan,
pp9.
Zahar, S., Tan, H. and Yoon, P.K. (1987). Correlation studies on photosynthetic rates,
girth and yield in Hevea brasiliensis. J Nat. Rubb. Res., 2,1, 46-54.
Zulkefly S. (2001). Unpublished data ( private communication )
1 3