Abstract: Pure cypress stands, 0.5-0.7 in canopy density, 25 a of age, and 15 degree in average slope, were chosen for experiment of chicken rearing in hilly areas of Central Sichuan. The experiment was designed to have five treatments in chicken density, i.e. 600 (Treatment I), 900 (Treatment II), 1200 (Treatment III) and 1500 (Treatment IV)hm^-2 and control (Treatment V, no chicken), and each, except for Treatment V, had three replicates. After one year of experiment, comparison was made in ecological and economic benefits between the treatments and the control. Results show that chicken rearing in the stands promotes tree growth and improves soil fertility. The treatments were 30.80% and 33.73% higher than the control in growth rate of the trees in diameter at breast height (DBH) and height, and 5.95%, 14.88%, 10.75% and 5.34% higher, respectively, in soil organic matter, TN, TP and TK in the 0 -20 cm soil layer. However, chicken rearing did have some negative effects on understory of the forests, like reducing shrub coverage by 6.67 - 26.50 percentage point, shrub species by 2 - 6; herbage coverage by 9.20 - 27.17percentage point, herbal species by 3 - 8, and litter coverage by 9.30 - 20.90percentage point. Besides, chicken rearing increased soil bulk density by 11.38% -17.99% in the 0 - 20cm soil layer and by 8.40%-15.75% in the >20 -40cm soil layer, and reduced total soil porosity by 3.20 percentage point. Runoff of Treatment, I, II, III and IV, increased by 33.59%, 52.97%, 109.06%, and 144.60% and sediment yield by 45.59%, 67.27%, 123.65%, and 146.96%, respectively. However, soil losses in the treatments were still much lower than the permissible limit (500 t•km^-2•a^-1) specified in the National Standard for Classification and Grading of Soil Erosions (SL 190-2007). Calculation on the basis of 600 cheickens per hm² in rearing density shows that the input-output ratio was 1:2.76, and the net income reached 68 800 yuan•hm². The comprehensive analysis reveals that chicken rearing at a density of 900 chinckens per hm² is the most appropriate and can be expected to generate considerable economic benefits and reduce water and soil losses.