Synergistic Carbon-Biodiversity Gains in Diversified Rubber Agroforestry Systems, Southern Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Rubber plantations cover millions of hectares across Southeast Asia, yet their capacity to deliver both agricultural production and ecological benefits depends heavily on how they are managed. This study compared six rubber management systems in southern Thailand, a conventional monoculture (RM) and five progressively diversified rubber-forest systems (RF1 to RF5), to quantify how increasing structural complexity affects biodiversity, soil health, and carbon storage. Field inventories documented tree species composition, natural regeneration, and deadwood; soil samples characterized organic carbon, nitrogen, and nutrient status; and aboveground biomass and carbon stocks were estimated using the TGO national carbon accounting tool. The most diversified system, RF5, supported 6.4 times more tree species than monoculture (205 vs. 32 species ha⁻¹) and three times the seedling regeneration (7,725 vs. 2,471 seedlings ha⁻¹). Soil organic carbon nearly doubled (from 1.44% to 2.49%), and total nitrogen increased significantly. Total non-rubber aboveground biomass rose nearly fourfold (from 622.64 to 2,348.57 kg ha⁻¹), and the associated carbon stock reached 4.04 tCO₂e ha⁻¹ compared to 1.20 tCO₂e ha⁻¹ in monoculture. These values represent only the diversified vegetation component; whole-system carbon stocks, including the rubber trees, are substantially higher. These gains moved together across the management gradient rather than independently, with soil fertility, biodiversity, and carbon accumulation reinforcing one another. Although diversified intensity and stand age co-vary in this cross-sectional design, the consistent coupling of ecological indicators across the gradient indicates that structural complexity is a primary organizing factor. Diversified rubber agroforestry systems offer a practical pathway for tropical smallholders to improve ecological function and contribute to climate mitigation.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Vashum, K. T.; Jayakumar, S. Methods to Estimate Aboveground Biomass and Carbon Storage in Natural Forests: A Review. J. Ecosyst. Ecogr. 2012, 2 (4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7625.1000116
Houghton, R. A. Aboveground Forest Biomass and the Global Carbon Balance. Glob. Change Biol. 2005, 11(6), 945–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00955.x
Gibbs, H. K.; Brown, S.; Niles, J. O.; Foley, J. A. Monitoring and Estimating Tropical Forest Carbon Stocks: Making REDD a Reality. Environ. Res. Lett. 2007, 2(4), 045023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045023
agdoff, F.; Weil, R. R. Significance of Soil Organic Matter to Soil Quality and Health. In Soil Organic Matter in Sustainable Agriculture; Magdoff, F., Weil, R. R., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, 2004; pp 1–43.
Verhofste, R.; Dunteman, L.; Commons, M.; Kristiansen, O.; Tongkaemkaew, U. Rubber Management Systems: From Extractive to Regenerative Production. ASEAN J. Sci. Technol. Rep. 2024, 27(3). https://doi.org/10.55164/ajstr.v27i3.250789
Wauters, J. B.; Coudert, S.; Grallien, E.; Jonard, M.; Ponette, Q. Carbon Stock in Rubber Tree Plantations in Ghana and Brazil. For. Ecol. Manage. 2008, 255(7), 2347–2362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.12.038
Liu, C. A.; Nie, Y.; Zhang, J. L.; Tang, J. W.; Rao, X.; Siddique, K. H. M. Soil Nutrient Responses to Long-Term Rubber Cultivation. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 946, 174340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.174340
Stroesser, L.; Penot, É.; Michel, I.; Tongkaemkaew, U.; Chambon, B. Income Diversification in Rubber Agroforestry. Rev. Int. Econ. Dev. 2018, 235, 117–145. https://doi.org/10.3917/ried.235.0117
Warren-Thomas, E.; Nelson, L.; Juthong, W.; Bumrungsri, S.; Brattström, O.; Stroesser, L.; Chambon, B.; Penot, É.; Tongkaemkaew, U.; Edwards, D. P.; Dolman, P. M. Rubber Agroforestry in Thailand Provides Biodiversity Benefits. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 57 (1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13530
Huang, L.; Li, Z.; Chen, H.; Wang, Y. Economic Performance of Rubber-Based Agroforestry Systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2023, 97, 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-022-00734-x
Qi, D.; Wu, Z.; Yang, C.; Tao, Z.; Zhao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Fu, Q. Rubber Agroforestry Systems in China. Adv. Biosci. Biotechnol. 2023, 14(12), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.4236/abb.2023.1412033
Tiko, J. M.; Ndjadi, S. S.; Obandza-Ayessa, J. L.; et al. Carbon Sequestration in Rubber Plantations: A Review. Earth 2025, 6(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/earth6020021
Tongkaemkaew, U.; Commons, M.; Verhofste, R.; Phooi, C. L.; Wonglom, P.; Bua-Khwan. Soil Fertility Regeneration in Rubber Agroforestry. ASEAN J. Sci. Technol. Rep. 2025, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.55164/ajstr.v28i2.255018
Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO). T-VER Carbon Sequestration Calculation Tool; TGO: Bangkok, n.d. (accessed Apr 10, 2024).
Tongkaemkaew, U.; Penot, É.; Chambon, B. Rubber Agroforestry Systems in Southern Thailand. Thaksin Univ. J. 2021, 23(1), 78–86.
Cardinale, B. J.; Duffy, J. E.; Gonzalez, A.; et al. Biodiversity Loss and Its Impact on Humanity. Nature 2012, 486(7401), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
Nair, P. K. R.; Nair, V. D.; Kumar, B. M.; Showalter, J. M. Carbon Sequestration in Agroforestry Systems. Adv. Agron. 2010, 108, 237–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(10)08005-3
Hanpattanakit, P.; Suteerapongpun, S.; Saengthongpinit, C. Carbon Stock Estimation in Urban Forests. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2022, 97, 427–432. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2297072
Brahma, B.; Nath, A. J.; Sileshi, G. W.; Das, A. K. Biomass Carbon Loss in Rubber Plantations. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 115, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.04.019
Wibawa, G.; Hendratno, S.; van Noordwijk, M. Rubber-Based Agroforestry Systems. In Proc. Int. Rubber Conf.; Indonesian Rubber Research Institute: Indonesia, 2006; pp 1–15.
Rafdinal, R.; Pitopang, R.; Tjoa, A.; Burhanuddin, B. Biomass and Carbon Storage in Agroforestry Systems. Acta Agric. Slov. 2021, 117, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14720/aas.2021.117.1.1859
Sahuri, S. Carbon Stock of Rubber Agroforestry Systems. J. Anal. Kebijak. Kehutan. 2019, 16, 105–115.
Werdana, K. P., Megantara, E. N., Withaningsih, S., & Saputra, Y. H. E. Allometric Equation of Paraserianthes falcataria (L.) and Anthocephalus cadamba Miq. for Estimating Carbon Stocks. J. Presipitasi. 2024, 21(2), 609. https://doi.org/10.14710/presipitasi.v21i2.609-621
Durán Bautista, E. H.; Romero Duque, L. P.; Galeano, G. Carbon Estimation in Hevea brasiliensis. In Proc. Int. For. Environ. Symp.; Universidad de la Amazonia: Colombia, 2011; pp 1–12.
Saengruksawong, C.; Khamyong, S.; Anongrak, N.; Pinthong, J. Growth and Carbon Stocks in Rubber Plantations. Suranaree J. Sci. Technol. 2012, 19(4), 271–278.
Diniz, A. R.; Machado, D. L.; Pereira, M. G.; Balieiro, F. C.; Menezes, C. E. G. Biomass and Carbon Stocks in Rubber Trees. Rev. Bras. Cienc. Solo 2015, 39(5), 1038–1045. https://doi.org/10.1590/01000683rbcs20140274
Lorenz, K.; Lal, R. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration in Agroforestry Systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34(2), 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0212-y
Henry, M.; Picard, N.; Trotta, C.; et al. Estimating Tree Biomass in African Forests. Silva Fenn. 2011, 45(3B), 477–569. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.38
Teo, H. C.; Lamba, A.; Ng, S. J. W.; et al. Reduction of Deforestation by Agroforestry. Nat. Sustain. 2025, 8, 358–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-025-01532-w
