Work

Rubber-Ficus hirta Vahl. Agroforestry System Enhances Productivity and Resource Utilization Efficiency and Reduces Carbon Footprint

Year: 2025

Type: article

Abstract: Developing a more productive, resource-efficient, and climate-smart rubber agroforestry model is essential for the sustainable growth of natural rubber cultivation. In this study, we evaluated whether a double-row rubber plantation intercropped with the medicinal crop Ficus hirta Vahl. (DR-F) could achieve this goal, using a single-row rubber plantation (SR) as the control. We assessed the feasibility of the DR-F system based on productivity, solar utilization efficiency (SUE), partial factor productivity of applied nitrogen (PFPN), carbon efficiency (CE), net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB), and carbon footprint (CF). No significant difference was observed in rubber tree biomass between the DR-F (10.49 t·ha−1) and SR (8.49 t·ha−1) systems. However, the DR-F system exhibited significantly higher total biomass productivity (23.34 t·ha−1) than the SR systems due to the substantial contribution from intercropped Ficus hirta Vahl., which yielded 12.84 t·ha−1(p < 0.05). The root fresh weight yield of Ficus hirta Vahl. reached 17.55 t·ha−1, generating an additional profit of 20,417 CNY ha−1. The DR-F system also exhibited higher solar radiation interception and greater availability of soil nutrients. Notably, the roots of rubber trees and Ficus hirta Vahl. did not overlap at a 4 m distance from the rubber trees. The DR-F system achieved higher SUE (0.64%), PFPN (51.40 kg·kg−1 N), and CE (6.93 kg·kg−1 C) than the SR system, with the SUE and PFPN differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05). Although the NECB remained unaffected, the DR-F system demonstrated significantly higher productivity and a substantially lower CF (0.33 kg CO2·kg−1, a 56% reduction; p < 0.05). In conclusion, the DR-F system represents a more sustainable and beneficial agroforestry approach, offering improved productivity, greater resource use efficiency, and reduced environmental impact.

Source: Agriculture

DOI: 10.3390/agriculture15161750