Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:31:45.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stimulation of Latex Flow in Hevea brasiliensis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

P. D. Abraham  and
R. S. Tayler
P. D. Abraham
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading
R. S. Tayler
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Reading
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Latex flow can be stimulated by bark scraping and by the application of vegetable oils, auxins and some other substances to the bark, either above or below the tapping cut. Auxin preparations are now widely used in commercial rubber production, 2,4–D and 2,4–5–T being the most common. The response obtained depends upon the formulation, on the method of application, and on other factors such as the age and condition of the tree and the tapping system employed. The effect of stimulation is considered to be due to a dilution of the latex and an increased rate of flow. A larger area of bark is drained, and the duration of flow is prolonged, because plugging of the latex vessels is delayed. In young trees, the conflict between increased latex production and active tree growth requires the development of different and less intensive techniques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , January 1967 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, P. D. (1963). Unpublished information. Rubber Research Institute of Malaya.Google Scholar
Abraham, P. D. & Boatman, S. G. (1964). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 18, 211.Google Scholar
Abraham, P. D. & Tayler, R. S. (1966). Trop. Agric. Trin. (In press).Google Scholar
Allen, S. E. & Rhines, C. E. (1961). Proc. Nat. Rubb. Res. Conf., Kuala Lumpur 1960, 241.Google Scholar
Anliker, W. L. & Scanlon, D. H. (1965). Expl Agric. 1, 153.Google Scholar
Baptiste, E. D. C. (1939). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 9, 17.Google Scholar
Baptiste, E. D. C. (1955). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 14, 355.Google Scholar
Baptiste, E. D. C. & De Jonge, P. (1955). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 14, 362.Google Scholar
Beeley, F. & Baptiste, E. D. C. (1939). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 9, 40.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. (1961). Proc. Nat. Rubb. Res. Conf. Kuala Lumpur 1960, 19.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E., Boatman, S. G., Powell, R. G. & Abraham, P. D. (1966). Private Communication.Google Scholar
Boatman, S. G. (1961). Proc. Nat. Rubb. Res. Conf., Kuala Lumpur 1960, 256.Google Scholar
Boatman, S. G. & Abraham, P. D. (1960). Unpublished information, Rubber Research Institute of Malaya.Google Scholar
Buttery, B. R & Boatman, S. G. (1964). Science, 145, 285.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. W. (1951) J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 13, 167.Google Scholar
Chua, S. E. (1965). Physiological aspects of exploitation. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya Planters' Bull. 80, 139.Google Scholar
Compagnon, P. & Tixier, P. (1950). Rev. gen. Caoutch. 27, 525.Google Scholar
De Jonge, P. (1955). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 14, 383.Google Scholar
De Jonge, P. (1957). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 15, 53.Google Scholar
De Jonge, P. (1965). Report on Chemara tapping experiments. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya Planters' Bull. 80, 194.Google Scholar
Ferrand, M. (1941). Acta biol. Belg. 1, 193.Google Scholar
Fickendy, E. (1918). Quoted by Baptiste (1955).Google Scholar
Gomez, J. B. (1964). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 18, 226.Google Scholar
Ho, C. Y. & Paardekooper, E. C. (1965). Application of stimulants to the virgin bark in clone trials. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya Planters' Bull. 80, 150.Google Scholar
Kamerun, P. S. (1912). Brit. Pat. 19615.Google Scholar
Levandowsky, D. W. (1961). Proc. Nat. Rubber Res. Conf, Kuala Lumpur 1960, 270Google Scholar
Mainstone, E. J. & Tan, K. S. (1964). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 18, 253.Google Scholar
Morris, J. E. (1965). The effect of tapping system on rubber properties. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya Planters' Bull. 80, 245.Google Scholar
Ng, E. K. (1965). Tapping experiments on older rubber. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya Planters' Bull. 80, 226.Google Scholar
Ng, E. K., Abraham, P. D., Gill, D. S. & P'Ng, T. C. (1965). Exploitation of young rubber: preliminary results. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya Planters' Bull. 80, 177.Google Scholar
Pakianathan, S. W. & Others (1965). Quoted by Chua (1965).Google Scholar
Puddy, C. A. & Warriar, S. M. (1961). Proc. Nat. Rubb. Res. Conf., Kuala Lumpur 1960, 194.Google Scholar
Rubber Research Institute of Malaya (1959). Stimulation of yield of rubber trees as a routine estate practice. Planters' Bull. 45, 127.Google Scholar
Rubber Research Institute of Malaya (1960). Stimulation of yield: a comparison of proprietary yield stimulants. Planters' Bull. 51, 114.Google Scholar
Rubber Research Institute of Malaya (1961). Depth of bark scraping before the application of yield stimulant. Planters' Bull. 55, 99.Google Scholar
Taysum, D. H. (1961). Proc. Nat. Rubb. Res. Conf., Kuala Lumpur 1960, 224.Google Scholar
Tixier, P. (1951). J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya. 13, 192.Google Scholar
Wiersum, L. K. (1953). Arch. Rubber Cultuur. 30, 27.Google Scholar