This study aimed to identify rubber clones, suitable for rubber-timber production. An experiment was established in randomized complete block design to evaluate the effects of two different planting densities on girth, girth increment, bark thickness, latex yield per tapping per tree (g/t/t), incident of tapping panel dryness disease, and wood potential of nine rubber clones, including RRIV 2, RRIV 3, RRIV 4, RRIV 5, RRIV 107, PB 235, PB 260, PB 330, and RRIC 121. Data of girth, girth increment, bark thickness were collected in the 7^th year, prior to opening for tapping, and 17^th year of planting. In contrast, data of latex yield were collected in the 3^rd and the 11^th tapping year, and wood potential was compared based on the data collected in the 11th tapping year. As a result, there were no significant interactions between clones and planting density in girth growth, latex yield, tapping panel dryness and bark thickness, and the first tapping panel (BO-1). There were no significant interactions between clone and planting density on girth growth, latex yield, tapping panel dryness, and bark thickness when these clones were tapped on the first tapping panel (BO- 1). Meanwhile, there were significant interactions between clones and planting density on girth growth, girth increment, and latex yield when the trees were tapped on the second tapping panel (BO-2). Statistical comparison of mean diameters at breast height and bole volume per tree of the same clones at two different planting densities showed that most of the studied clones gave significant differences. However, no significant differences resulted in the statistical comparison of the mean bole height of the same clones at two different planting densities. The total bole volume per hectare of all studied clones was larger at high planting density than at normal planting density. However, the bole volume per tree at high planting density was smaller than that at normal planting density. Clone RRIC 121 could be considered a suitable clone for latex and timber productions. The favorable planting density for commercial timber production is high.

• Cockerham, S. T. (2004). Irrigation and planting density affect river red gum growth. California Agriculture, 58(1), 40-43. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v058n01p40

• Lam, L. V., Thanh, T., Trang, L. T. T., Truong, V. V., Lam, H. B., & Tuy, L. M. (2012). Hevea germplasm in Vietnam: Conservation, characterization, evaluation and utilization. In M. Caliskan (Ed.), Genetic diversity in plants (pp. 433-456). InTech Publisher. https://doi.org/10.5772/35086

• Lei, H., Gartner, L. B., & Milota, M. R. (1997). Effect of growth rate on the anatomy, specific gravity, and bending properties of wood from 7-year-old red alder (Alnus rubra). Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 27(1), 80-85. https://doi.org/10.1139/x96-165

• Mäkinen, H. (1996). Effect of inter tree competition on biomass production of Pinus sylvestris (L.) half-sib families. Forest Ecology and Management, 86(1-3), 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(96)03788-7

• Mäkinen, H. (1997). Possibilities of competition indices to describe competitive differences between Scots pine families. Silva Fennica, 31(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.a8509

• Naji, H. R., & Sahri, M. H. (2012). Intra- and inter-clonal tree growth variations of Hevea brasiliensis. Journal of Forestry Research, 23(3), 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-012-0280-2

• Nasir, M. A., Aziz, A., Mohar, T. A., Rehman, M. A., & Ahmad, S. (2006). Effect of planting distance on tree growth and fruit quality of shamber grapefruit under agro climatic conditions of Sargodha. Journal of Agricultural Research, 44(4), 353-358.

• Obouayeba, S., Dian, K., Boko, A. M. C., Gnagne, Y. M., & Ake, S. (2005). Effect of planting density on growth and yield productivity of Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg. clone PB 235. Journal of Rubber Research, 8(4), 257-270.

• Rodrigo, V. H. L., Nugawela, A., Pathiratna, L. S. S., Waidyanatha, U. P. S., Samaranayake, A. C. I., Kodikara, P. B., & Weeralal, J. L. K. (1995). Effect of plant density on growth, yield, and yield related factors and profitability of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis Muell. Arg.). Journal of Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka, 76, 55-71.

• SAS Institute Inc. (1999). SAS/STAT user’s guide (version 8.01). SAS Institute.

• Schroth, G. (1999). A review of below ground interactions in agroforestry, focusing on mechanisms and management options. Agroforestry Systems, 43(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026443018920

• Scott, W., Meade, R., & Leon, R. (1998). Planting density and tree-size relations in coast Douglas-fir. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 28(1), 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1139/x97-190

• Truong, V. V., Lam, L. V., Tuy, L. M., & Hoa, T. T. T. (2003, November 12-14). An approach for estimation of wood volume of the main stem of rubber stands [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Workshop on Rubber, Wood, Croping and Research, Bangkok, Thailand.

• Webster, C. C., & Paardekooper, E. C. (1989). The botany of the rubber tree. In C. C. Webster & W. J. Baulkwill (Eds.), Rubber (pp. 57-84). Longman Scientific and Technical.

• Wei, H. Y., Wang, Y., Wang, Z., & Yan, X. (2005). Effect of planting density on plant growth and camptothecin content of Camptotheca acuminate seedlings. Journal of Forestry Research, 16(2), 137-139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02857907