Effect of protective coating of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell Arg.) tapping panel on the regeneration of the tapped bark
Author(s)
Obouayeba Samuel , Konan Djezou , Diarrassouba Moussa , Adou B. Y. C , Elabo A. E. A , Soumahin E. F ,
Download Full PDF Pages: 56-63 | Views: 306 | Downloads: 108 | DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5149844
Abstract
The tapping panel, rubber extraction area of the rubber tree, is very valuable in rubber cultivation. Indeed, the fast and efficient regeneration of the bark is a major concern. Thus, a study to test a protective coating of the tapping panel to ensure a better and faster regeneration of its bark was investigated on GT 1 clone in South-Eastern Côte d'Ivoire. It was conducted in a "one tree plot design" statistical system with 120 trees equitably divided into four treatments. The rubber trees were subjected to downward tapping for the first four years after opening the tapping panel. Application of the protective coating alone affected negatively iso-diametric growth of the trunk and regeneration of the tree panel bark. Likewise, it has exacerbated the susceptibility to rubber tree tapping panel dryness syndrome. In contrast, the addition of ANA methyl ester to this coating favorably influenced iso-diametric growth of the trunk, regeneration of bark of the tapping panel, and reduced susceptibility to tapping panel dryness syndrome. The addition of ANA methyl ester at 5% to the protective coating of the rubber tree tapping panel gives it a certain efficiency, especially for the regeneration of its bark.
Keywords
Protective plaster, rubber production, radial vegetative growth, physiological parameters, tapping panel dryness sensitivity, Côte d’Ivoire
References
i. Anonymous, 1993. Recueil de fiches de clones Hévéa. CIRAD-Cultures pérennes, édition Montpellier, France, 20 p
ii. Anonymous, 2018a. Les procédés de production de biogaz pour le développement de .cellules. https://books.google.ci/books?isbn=925203126X. Visited on May 9th 2018.
iii. Anonymous, 2018b. Avantages et inconvénients de la peinture vinylique. https://www.plus-que-pro.fr/P-765-425-B1-avantages-et-inconvenients-de-la-peinture-vinylique.html. Visited on May 9th 2018.
iv. Ashwell G., 1957. Colorimetric analysis of sugar. Methods in Enzymology, 3:73-105.
v. Boyne A.F. and Ellman G.I., 1972.A methodology for analysis of tissue sulphydryl components. Analytical Bilochemistry, 46: 639-653.
vi. Chapuset T., 2001. Description des clones étudiés à grande échelle. Rapport CNRA-HEVEA n°01/01–A- Mai 2001, 36 p.
vii. Chapuset T., Gnagne M., Legnate H., Koffi E. and Clément-Demange A., 2000. Les champs des clones à Grande Echelle en Côte d’Ivoire, situation en 1999. Rapport Sea n° 01/2000-A mars 2000, 40-63.
viii. Compagnon P., 1986. Le caoutchouc naturel. Coste R., édition G.P. Maisonneuve et Larose, Paris, 595 p.
ix. Diarrassouba M., Soumahin E. F., Coulybaly L. F., N’guessan A. E. B., Dick K. E., Kouame C., Obouayeba S. and Ake S., 2012. Latex harvesting technologies adapted to clones PB 217 and PR 107 of Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. of the slow metabolism class and to the socio-economic context of Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Biosciences, 2 (12): 125-138
x. Elstner E.F., 1982. Oxygen activation and oxygen toxicity. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 33: 73p
xi. Eschbach J.M., Roussel D., Van De Sype H., Jacob J.L. and D’Auzac J., 1984. Relationships between yield and clonal physiological characteristics of latex from Hevea brasiliensis. Physiologie Véggétale, 22: 295 - 304.
xii. Fridovich I., 1978. The biology of oxygen radicals. Sciences, 201: 75p.
xiii. Gohet E., 1996. La production de latex par Hevea brasiliensis. Relations avec la croissance. Influence de différents facteurs : origine clonale, stimulation hormonale, réserves hydrocarbonées. Thèse de Doctorat de 3ème cycle, Université des Sciences et Techniques de Languedoc, Montpellier II, France, 343 p.
xiv. Gohet E., Prevot J.C., Eschbach J.M., Clement A. and Jacob J.L., 1996. Clone, croissance et stimulation, facteurs de la production de latex. Plantation Recherche Développement, 3 (1): 30-38.
xv. Gomez J.B., 1982. Anatomy of Hevea and its influence on latex production. Malaysian Rubber Research and Board (MRRDB), monograph n°7, Kuala Lumpur, 76 p.
xvi. Jacob J.L., Lacrotte R., Serres E. and Roussel D., 1987. Les paramètres physiologiques du latexd’Hevea brasiliensis, le diagnostic latex, ses bases et sa mise au point. Ekoma, Côte d’Ivoire, février, 1987, 64- 74.
xvii. Jacob J.L., Serres E., Prevot J.C., Lacrotte R., Clement-Vidal A., Eschbach J.M. and D’Auzac J., 1988. Mise au point du diagnostic latex. Agritrop, 12: 97-118.
xviii. Jacob J.L., D’Auzac J., Prevot J.C. and Serier J.B., 1995a. Une usine à caoutchouc naturel: l’hévéa. La recherche, 276: 538-545.
xix. Jacob J.L., Prévôt J.C., Lacrotte R., Clément A., Serres E. and Gohet E., 1995b. Typologie clonale du fonctionnement des laticifères chez Hevea brasiliensis. Platation Recherche Développement, 2 (5): 43-49.
xx. Lacote R., Gabla O., Obouayeba S., Eschbach J.M., Rivano F., Dian K. and Gohet E., 2010. Long-term effect of ethylene stimulation on the yield on rubber trees is linked to latex cell biochemistry. Field Crop Research, 115: 94- 98.
xxi. Obouayeba S., 2005. Contribution à la détermination de la maturité physiologique de l’écorce pour la mise en saignée d’Hevea brasiliensis. Muell. Arg. : Normes d’ouverture. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Cocody, Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, 255 p.
xxii. Obouayeba S., Boa D., Gohet E., Dian K., Ouattara N. and Kéli J., 2000. Dynamics of vegetative growth of Hevea brasiliensis in the determination of tapping norms. Journal of Rubber Research, 3 (1): 53-62.
xxiii. Obouayeba S., Boa D., Ake S. and Lacote 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.
xxiv. Pinhal S. 2015. Mécanismes de l’inhibition de ´la croissance par l’acétate chez Escherichia coli. Thèse de Doctorat. Université de Grenoble, France, 149 p.
xxv. Serres E., Lacrotte R., Prevot J.C., Clement A., Commere J. and Jacob J.L., 1994. Metabolic aspects of latex regeneration in situ for three Hevea clones. Indian Journal of natural Rubber Research, 7: 79-84.
xxvi. Southorn W.A. 1969. Latex collection in disposable plastic bags and the use of expanded plastic rainguards. Planters’ Bull., 104: 156-82.
xxvii. Taussky H.H. and Shorr E. 1953. A micro colorimetric method for the determination of inorganic phosphorus. J. Biol. Chem., 202: 675-685
xxviii. Thomas V., Premakumari D., Reghu C.P., Panikkar A.O.N. and Saraswathy A.C.K., 1995. Anatomical and histochimical aspects of bark regeneration in Hevea brasiliensis. Naturhistorischen Museums Wien, 75: 421-426.
xxix. Tonnelier M. and Primôt L. 1979. La stimulation de la production en latex de l’hévéa. PG/MM, IRCA, 8.
xxx. Traore M. S., Dick E. A., Elabo A. E. A., Soumahin E. F., Assi E. G. M., Atsin O. G. J., Alle Y. J., N’Guessan A. E. B., Kouame C. and Obouayeba S., 2014. Effets de différentes fréquences annuelles de stimulation éthylénique sur les paramètres agrophysiologiques et de sensibilité à l’encoche sèche d’Hevea brasiliensis au sud-est de la Côte d’Ivoire : cas des clones PB 235 et PB 260 de la classe d’activité métabolique rapide. Inernational. Journal of Biologcal and Chemical Science, 8 (3): 956-974.
xxxi. Van De Sype H., 1984. The dry cut syndrome in Hevea brasiliensis, evolution, agronomical and physiological aspects. In C. R. Coll. IRRDB Physiol. Expl. Amel. Hévéa. IRCA-CIRAD, édition Montpellier, pp. 227-249.
Cite this Article: