SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.9 número48Características dinámicas de 22 maderas determinadas por el método de vibraciones transversalesCondiciones edáficas, abundancia y riqueza de hongos ectomicorrizógenos comestibles índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO

Compartilhar


Revista mexicana de ciencias forestales

versão impressa ISSN 2007-1132

Rev. mex. de cienc. forestales vol.9 no.48 México Jul./Ago. 2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.29298/rmcf.v8i48.125 

Articles

Raw sawdust substrates and fertilization in the plant quality of Pinus cooperi Blanco seedlings grown at the nursery

María Mónica González Orozco1 

José Ángel Prieto Ruíz2  * 

Arnulfo Aldrete3 

José Ciro Hernández Díaz4 

Jorge Armando Chávez Simental4 

Rodrigo Rodríguez Laguna5 

1Programa Institucional de Doctorado en Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, México

2Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango

3Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Montecillo, México

4Instituto de Silvicultura e Industria de la Madera, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, México

5Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, México

Abstract:

In order to ensure the success of reforestation programs, it is necessary to use high quality seedlings. Using alternative substrates of wide availability and low cost (raw pine sawdust and composted pine bark) may be a viable option to produce such seedlings. Therefore, the effect of four substrates (composed of raw pine sawdust, composted pine bark and peat moss) in interaction with two controlled-release fertilizers (MulticoteTM and Osmocote PlusTM) on the quality of nursery-grown Pinus cooperi seedlings was assessed. The seedlings were planted in polystyrene trays with 77 cavities and a capacity of 170 mL per cavity. The substrates evaluated were: S1) 46 % peat moss + 54 % bark, S2) 30 % peat moss + 20 % bark + 50 % sawdust, S3) 25 % peat moss + 25 % bark + 50 % sawdust, and S4) 20 % peat moss + 30 % bark + 50 % sawdust ―all of them combined with MulticoteTM (18-06-12, N-P-K) and Osmocote PlusTM (15-09-12, N-P-K). The experimental design utilized was completely randomized, with a 4 × 2 factorial arrangement. In nine-month-old seedlings, the best results for the variables diameter, total biomass and Dickson quality index were found in substrate S1: 46 % peat moss + 54 % bark with 8 g L-1 of MulticoteTM. However, substrate S2: 30 % peat moss + 20 % bark + 50 % sawdust in combination with 8 g L-1 of MulticoteTM also yielded acceptable values and, in addition, reduced the production costs by 39.8 %, due to the substrate and fertilizer.

Key words: Raw pine sawdust; plant quality; composted pine bark controlled-release fertilizer; peat moss; morphological variables

Introduction

196 million plants of the genus Pinus are produced in Mexico every year; this activity is important for the reforestation programs and commercial forest plantations. In the state of Durango, during the 2010-2015 period, the production of nursery-grown seedlings increased from 6.4 to 10 million seedlings per year (Conafor, 2016). In order for this vegetative material to survive and develop properly in field, it must have the adequate morphological and physiological characteristics; these are attained through a good management of the factors involved in their growth in the nursery: substrate, irrigation, fertilization, and pest and disease control, among others (Serrada, 2000; Prieto and Sáenz, 2011).

In forest nurseries, the substrate is a raw material of particular interest because its characteristics in terms of porosity, water retention, drainage and availability of nutrients are directly related to growth, to the production of dry matter and to the survival of the species (Sandoval et al., 2000; Zumkeller et al., 2009; Escobar and Buamscha, 2012). Normally, the substrates are formulated with balanced mixtures of organic and inorganic mater; these components are selected based on their stability, handling, root ball formation, health, availability and cost (Burés, 1999; Escobar, 2012).

The most widely used substrate in the country is a mixture of moss peat, perlite and vermiculite, in a 60:30:10 proportion, respectively. However, the high prices of peat moss (125 USD m-3), perlite (114 USD m-3) and vermiculite (151.5 USD m-3), which are imported (Aguilera et al., 2016a), generate the need to seek other alternatives with regional materials that may replace or reduce their use (Tian et al., 2017). Furthermore, the excessive extraction of peat moss causes important environmental damage to the ecosystems where it is collected (Aleandri et al., 2015).

Certain options of substrates are based on waste of cattle (cow dung compost) and of the agro-food (coconut and coffee fibers) and forest (pine bark and sawdust) industries (Aguilera et al., 2016a; Aguilera et al., 2016b).

In Mexico, the use of raw pine sawdust is limited, prevailing only at the center of the country, with satisfactory results in the production of Pinus pseudostrobus Lindl. (Reyes et al., 2005; Aguilera et al., 2016a), Pinus greggii Engelm. (Maldonado et al., 2011), Cedrela odorata L. (Mateo et al., 2011) and Pinus montezumae Lamb. (Hernández-Zarate et al., 2014; Aguilera et al., 2016b). This has allowed growing seedlings with characteristics that agree with the morphological parameters established by the National Forestry Commission (Comisión Nacional Forestal, Conafor). Nevertheless, according to Buendía et al. (2016), the behavior of this material under different production conditions must be assessed.

In the state of Durango, the incorporation of raw pine sawdust as a component of the substrates is a viable option in the production of forest seedlings, as each year the forest industry generates approximately 461 777 m3 of this material (Semarnat, 2015), which has a low cost but is little used (9.4 USD m-3) (Fregoso at al., 2017).

On the other hand, composted pine bark has been utilized as part of the substrates for approximately 10 years (Prieto et al., 2009), due to its ample availability in the region and is cost (56.3 USD m-3), which is lower than that of the materials cited above.

Because no material has by itself all the necessary characteristics for its use as a substrate, mixtures in which peat moss is an indispensable material are prepared; however, these require adding fertilizers in order to nourish the vegetative materials in propagation (Burés, 1999; Sánchez et al., 2008). Fertilizers may be added directly to the substrate, in the form of controlled-release granulated products, which render their management easier, or by irrigation during the production process, and in some cases, they combine both alternatives. The type and amount of fertilizer must be carefully determined (Oliet et al., 1999; Dumroese et al., 2012), as various options may lead to different results in terms of profitability and of the quality of the plants.

Based on the above, the objectives of this study were: 1) to determine the physical and chemical characteristics of the substrates that were mixtures of raw pine sawdust, composted pine bark and peat moss; 2) to assess the influence of four substrates in combination with controlled-release fertilizers, on the growth and quality of nursery-grown Pinus cooperi seedlings, and 3) to determine the cost per plant, based on the substrates and fertilizers used. The hypotheses were that: 1) a substrate composed of raw pine sawdust in combination with peat moss and composted pine bark produces high-quality seedlings and reduces the nursery production costs, and 2) at least one controlled-release fertilizer enhances the quality of the seedlings.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The experiment was carried out at the “General Francisco Villa” forest nursery, located in the ejido known as 15 de Septiembre, in Durango, Dgo., Mexico, at the coordinates 23°58'20.38” N and 104°35'55.83” W and an altitude of 1 875 masl. The study was performed in a baticenital greenhouse with zenithal, lateral and frontal ventilation, and an automated irrigation system with microsprinklers. The average minimum temperature was 7.8 °C; the average mean temperature, 18.8 °C, and the average maximum temperature, 34.4 °C.

Plant production and treatment

The cultivation cycle began in November 2014 and ended in July 2015; the seeds were collected in San José Miravalles, San Dimas municipality, Durango. Before planting, a pre-germination treatment, which consisted in soaking the seeds in water for 24 hours, and then disinfecting them during 5 minutes in a solution of 10 % commercial chlorine in 90 % water; Captán TM fungicide (N-trichloromethyl-4-ciylohexene-1,2-dicarboximide) was subsequently added, in doses of 2.5 g L-1. The seeds were planted in polystyrene trays with 77 cavities, with a capacity of 170 mL per cavity. The substrates consisted of peat moss, composted bark of Pinus douglasiana Martínez and raw pine sawdust (with a particle size of 0.1 to 1.5 mm) obtained from sawn logs of Pinus engelmannii Carr., Pinus cooperi Blanco and Pinus durangensis Martínez.

Eight treatments derived from four substrates were assessed. The substrates were: S1) 46 % peat moss + 54 % composted pine bark (considered as the control because it was the substrate used at the greenhouse); S2) 30 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S3) 25 % peat moss + 25 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust, and S4) 20 % peat moss + 30 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust. In addition, two controlled-release fertilizers were used: 1) MulticoteTM 18N - 6P2O5 - 12K2O + 2MgO + micro- nutrients (Haifa Chemicals Ltd.) and 2) Osmocote PlusTM 15N - 9P2O5 - 12 K2O + micro-nutrients (eveRRIS ILC Fertilizer Company), both of which were applied at a fixed dose of 8 g L-1 and released nutrients through 8 to 9 months. During the cultivation cycle, the seedlings were irrigated with water only, i.e. no leaf fertilizers were added.

Physical and chemical characteristics of the substrates

The physical characteristics ―aeration porosity (%), moisture retention porosity (%) and total porosity (%)― of all four substrates were determined using the method described by Landis (1990). As for their chemical characteristics, the pH measured in water and the electric conductivity (dS m-1) were considered, based on the norm NOM-021-RECNAT-2000, in order to determine the fertility of the soils. The analyses were carried out at the Laboratorio de Ciencias Ambientales del Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional, Unidad Durango, del Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) (Environmental Sciences Laboratory of the Interdisciplinary Research Center for Regional Integral Development, campus Durango, of the National Polytechnic Institute) (IPN).

Morphological variables

Six nine-month-old individuals per experimental unit were extracted; their height from the stem base to the apical bud (cm), with a Truper™ 14387 ruler; diameter at the stem base (mm) were measured with a SURTEK™ 122204 digital caliper; and their aerial, root and total dry biomass (g) was weighed. For the dry biomass, the seedlings were placed in paper bags and dehydrated in a FELISA™ FE-291D drying oven at 70 °C during 72 hours; they were subsequently weighed using an Ohaus TM PA214 analytical balance with a 0.0001 g precision.

The above variables were used to calculate the Dickson quality index (DQI) (Dickson et al., 1960):

DQI=TDWADWRDW +HD

Where:

TDW = Total dry weight

ADW = Dry weight of the aerial part

RDW = Root dry weight

H = Height of the plant

D = Diameter of the plant

Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentrations

The nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentrations were determined based on representative samples of the foliage, consisting of needles from the middle part of each seedling (5 g per treatment), with three repetitions. The nitrogen content was estimated using the Kjeldahl method; the phosphorus content, using colorimetric analysis with phosphorus-vanadium molybdenum yellow complex, and the potassium content, by atom emission. All these analyses were performed at the Laboratorio de Fertilidad de Suelos y Química Ambiental, del Colegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Estado de México (Soil Fertility and Environmental Chemistry Laboratory of the College of Postgraduates in Montecillo, State of Mexico).

Cost of the substrate

The cost of the substrate was determined based on 170 mL of substrate per cavity, and the addition of 34 mL to the volume because of the compaction occurring when the cavities of the trays are filled. The value per liter of substrate was estimated in USD, being 0.088 for S1, 0.053, S2, 0.050 for S3 and 0.047 for S4. The cost of the fertilizers was estimated in USD, with values of 2.31 per kilogram of MulticoteTM and 3.81 per kilogram of Osmocote PlusTM.

Experimental design and statistical analysis

A totally random experimental design with a 4 × 2 factorial arrangement (four substrates and two fertilizers) was used. The experimental unit was made up of 77 seedlings (7 × 11) contained in polystyrene trays, with four repetitions per treatment. The following statistical model was used:

Yijk=μ+ Ai+ Bj+ABij +eijk

Where:

Y ijk = Response obtained for the ith of the A factor level and the jth of the factor B level in the kth repetition.

μ = Mean overall efect

Ai = Effect ascribed to the i th level of factor A

Bj = Effect ascribed to the j th level of factor B

(AB)ij = Effect ascribed to the interaction between the ith level of factor A and the jth level of factor B

eijk = Random error, where the e ijk have a normal and independent distribution with a mean = 0 and a variance = σ2

i = Number of levels of factor A (four substrates)

j = Number of levels of factor B (two fertilizers)

k = Number of repetitions (four)

The potential significant statistical differences between treatments were detected by means of a variance analysis using the GLM procedures; the variables with statistical significance were subjected to a Tukey mean comparison test (P ≤ 0.05), using the statistical package SAS 9.0 (SAS, 2002).

Results and Discussion

Physical and chemical characteristics of the substrates

The aeration porosity varied by 1.5 % between treatments, with an interval of 31.4 to 32.7 %. The moisture retention porosity ranged between 32.0 % in S1 and 44.8 % in S2; i.e. it increased in those substrates that included sawdust, which caused a higher total porosity, with values ranging from 64.2 % in S1 to 76.2 % in S2 (Table 1).

Table 1 Physical and chemical characteristics of the substrates assessed in the production of Pinus cooperi Blanco. 

Substrate Aeration porosity (%) Moisture retention porosity (%) Total porosity (%) pH Electric conductivity (dS m -1 )
S1(Control) 32.1 32.0 64.2 4.7 0.1
S2 31.4 44.8 76.2 4.7 0.1
S3 32.5 43.5 76.0 4.9 0.1
S4 32.7 41.8 74.5 5.0 0.1
RV 25 to 35 25 to 55 60 to 80 5 to 6.5 <1.0

S1 = 46 % peat moss + 54 % composted pine bark; S2 = 30 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S3 = 25 % peat moss + 25 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S4 = 20 % peat moss + 30 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust. RV = Recommended values (Landis et al., 1990; Mathers et al., 2007).

The physical properties are relevant because they cannot be modified during the cultivation cycle; for this reason, the substrate should have the appropriate characteristics from the start (Cruz-Crespo et al., 2013). Based on the production parameters of the nursery-grown conifer seedlings, the recommended interval for the aeration porosity is 25 to 35 % (Landis, 1990), which shows that a proper value was attained with all the treatments (Table 1). In this case, the particle size and the proportion of the materials in the substrates favored the availability of porous spaces (Cruz-Crespo et al., 2013).

The assessed substrates with different proportions of peat moss, bark, sawdust, perlite and vermiculite (Hernández-Zarate et al., 2004) exhibited similar values for aeration porosity in substrates with 40 % composted bark + 60 % sawdust and 60 % composted bark + 40 % sawdust; while for substrates with 80 % composted bark + 20 % sawdust and 60 % composted bark + 40 % sawdust, Sánchez et al. (2008) cite a value of 9 %, attributed to the fact that the utilized materials contained a large number of fine particles, which allowed for few air spaces.

With regard to moisture retention porosity, the recommended values are 25 to 55 % (Landis, 1990); in the present study, the lowest value (32.0 %) was for S1, while the substrates with sawdust increased due to the larger number of fine particles, with values ranging between 41.8 and 44.8 % (Table 1). Hernández-Zarate et al. (2014) obtained similar values (40 and 41 %) in substrates with 40 % composted bark + 60 % sawdust and 60 % composted bark + 40 % sawdust; in substrates with 70 and 80 % sawdust values of 63 to 65 % have been documented (Sánchez et al., 2008; Aguilera et al., 2016b). Moisture retention increases in direct proportion to the percentage of sawdust, due to the absorption capacity of the latter; whereas bark has a low moisture retention capacity, as can be seen in S1 (which was 54 % bark); this can be corrected by mixing the bark with other materials with better moisture retention (García et al., 2001; Cervantes et al., 2018), such as sawdust and peat moss.

In the study here described, total porosity in all the substrates was within the recommended interval (60-80 %) (Landis, 1990), with values ranging from 64.2 to 75.6 % (Table 1). Again, the substrate with 54 % bark had the lowest records. The production of Pinus montezumae exhibited similar results (69 to 77 %) in the substrates composed of bark and sawdust (Hernández-Zarate et al., 2014); this suggests that raw sawdust in combination with such materials as peat moss and pine bark produces substrates with a good balance in terms of these characteristics.

As for the assessed chemical characteristics, the average pH in substrates S1, S2 and S3 was 4.8, i.e. lightly more acid than in S4 (5.0); only S4 attained the minimum recommended value (pH = 5) (Table 1). However, the use of fertilizers and irrigation may produce a higher content of salts and cause the pH levels to increase by 0.5 to 1.0 units (Landis, 1990 ). Sánchez et al. (2008) (4.1 to 5.2) and Hernández-Zarate et al. (2014) cite similar values (4.3 to 4.7) for substrates with various combination of composted pine bark and sawdust, as well as a pH of 4.9 in the substrate containing 60 % raw sawdust + 20 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark (Castro et al., 2018). Atland et al. (2014) point out that the typical values observed in the production of various nursery-grown species range between 4.0 and 6.0 when substrates with pine bark and peat moss are used.

In all substrates, the average value for electric conductivity was 0.1 dS m-1 (Table 1), while acceptable values range between 0.8 and 3.5 dS m-1. When figures are above the 5.0 value, they indicate high salinity, as few seedlings can resist this condition. In this study, the substrates had values rated low (Mathers et al., 2007). Aguilera et al. (2016b) also cite low values (0.04 dS m-1) for a substrate with 70 % composted pine sawdust + 15 % composted pine bark + 15 % vermiculite; by incorporating 60 % raw sawdust + 20 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark; Castro et al. (2018) obtained 0.9 dS m-1.

Morphological variables

The substrate and fertilizer factors did not produce evident significant differences in the height of the seedlings; however, there were statistically significant effects on the diameter, of 4.0 mm, both in S1 and in the substrate with MulticoteTM. As for the interaction of the assessed factors, there were significant differences in diameter; the best interaction resulted from S1 with MulticoteTM, with 4.0 mm, followed by substrates S2 and S3 combined with MulticoteTM (Table 2).

Table 2 Mean values, standard error and significances of the morphological variables assessed in Pinus cooperi Blanco, in response to the substrates and controlled-release fertilizers used during the November 2014 to July 2015 cultivation cycle. 

Factor/Treatment Height (cm) Diameter (mm) Dry biomass (g) Dickson quality index
Aerial Root Total
Substrate
S1 15.1 ± 0.7 a 4.0 ± 0.1 a 2.1 ± 0.1 a 0.7 ± 0.0 a 2.8 ± 0.1 a 0.4 ± 0.0 a
S2 16.4 ± 0.7 a 3.8 ± 0.1 ab 1.8 ± 0.1 ab 0.7 ± 0.0 a 2.5 ± 0.2 ab 0.4 ± 0.0 ab
S3 16.2 ± 0.6 a 3.7 ± 0.1 ab 1.7 ± 0.1 ab 0.7 ± 0.0 a 2.4 ± 0.1 ab 0.4 ± 0.0 ab
S4 14.7 ± 0.7 a 3.6 ± 0.1 b 1.5 ± 0.1 b 0.6 ± 0.0 a 2.1 ± 0.1 b 0.3 ± 0.0 b
P 0.2074 ns 0.0147 * 0.0041 ** 0.1509 ns 0.0096 ** 0.0499 *
Fertilizer
MulticoteTM 15.6 ± 0.5 a 4.0 ± 0.1 a 1.8 ± 0.1 a 0.7 ± 0.0 a 2.5 ± 0.1 a 0.4 ± 0.0 a
Osmocote PlusTM 15.5 ± 0.5 a 3.6 ± 0.1 b 1.7 ± 0.1 a 0.6 ± 0.0 b 2.3 ± 0.1 a 0.3 ± 0.0 b
P 0.9298 ns <0.0001 *** 0.4820 ns 0.0092 ** 0.2133 ns 0.0043 **
Interaction
S1- MulticoteTM 15.5 ± 1.0 a 4.2 ± 0.1 a 2.1 ± 0.2 a 0.8 ± 0.1 a 2.9 ± 0.2 a 0.5 ± 0.0 a
S2- MulticoteTM 16.6 ± 1.1 a 4.0 ± 0.1 ab 1.8 ± 0.2 ab 0.7 ± 0.0 ab 2.5 ± 0.2 ab 0.4 ± 0.0 ab
S3- MulticoteTM 16.3 ± 0.8 a 4.0 ± 0.1 ab 1.7 ± 0.1 ab 0.8 ± 0.0 ab 2.5 ± 0.2 ab 0.4 ± 0.0 ab
S4- MulticoteTM 13.0 ± 1.1 a 3.7 ± 0.1 abc 1.6 ± 0.1 ab 0.6 ± 0.0 ab 2.2 ± 0.2 ab 0.4 ± 0.0 ab
S1- Osmocote PlusTM 14.6 ± 1.0 a 3.8 ± 0.1 abc 2.0 ± 0.2 ab 0.6 ± 0.1 ab 2.6 ± 0.2 ab 0.4 ± 0.0 ab
S2- Osmocote PlusTM 16.2 ± 1.0 a 3.6 ± 0.1 bc 1.9 ± 0.2 ab 0.7 ± 0.1 ab 2.6 ± 0.2 ab 0.4 ± 0.0 ab
S3- Osmocote PlusTM 16.0 ± 0.8 a 3.4 ± 0.1 c 1.6 ± 0.1 ab 0.6 ± 0.0 ab 2.2 ± 0.2 ab 0.3 ± 0.0 b
S4- Osmocote PlusTM 15.4 ± 0.8 a 3.4 ± 0.1 c 1.5 ± 0.1 b 0.5 ± 0.0 b 2.0 ± 0.2 b 0.3 ± 0.0 b
P 0.5066 ns <0.0001 *** 0.0353 * 0.0160 * 0.0359 * 0.0107 *

S1 = 46 % peat moss + 54 % composted pine bark; S2 = 30 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S3 = 25 % peat moss + 25 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S4 = 20 % peat moss + 30 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; MulticoteTM = 18N - 6P2O5 - 12K2O + 2MgO + micro nutrients; Osmocote PlusTM = 15N - 9P2O5 - 12 K2O + micro nutrients. P = Limit probabilities in ANOVA; *= p<0.05; **= p<0.01; ***= p<0.001; ns = Non-significant. In each column, different letters for the same variable by factor indicate significant differences, according to Tukey (P < 0.05).

In regard to dry biomass, substrate had an effect on the production of aerial and total biomass; the highest values were found in S1 (2.1 g of aerial biomass and 2.8 g of total biomass); the fertilizer only influenced root biomass; notably, the use of MulticoteTM produced 0.7 g. The interaction between the factors was significant, particularly in S1 with MulticoteTM (Table 2).

Based on the NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2016 Mexican norm (Secretaría de Economía, 2016), the recommended height for P. cooperi is 15 to 20 cm, with a diameter of ≥ 4.0 mm; in this case, all other treatments, with the exception of S4, reached the minimum height. As for the diameter, the interactions of S1, S2 and S3 with MulticoteTM registered the minimum suggested value in the two variables; these measures may be attained with all the treatments, with an additional month of cultivation.

Aguilera et al. (2016a) produced ten-month-old P. pseudostrobus seedlings in a substrate with 60 % raw sawdust + 15 % composted pine bark + 15 % peat moss + 10 % vermiculite, in combination with high doses of controlled-release fertilizers (8 g L-1 MulticoteTM), with the following measures: a height of 23.3 cm, a diameter of 5.3 mm, a root dry weight of 1.3 g, and an aerial dry weight of 4.2 g.

Reyes et al. (2005) combined 80 % sawdust with 20 % earth, 20 % pine bark, 20 % peat moss or 20 % agrolyte, and added 5 g L-1 of MulticoteTM 18-6-12 in order to produce nine-month-old P. pseudostrobus seedlings with values below those cited above. Maldonado et al. (2011) grew nine-month-old P. greggii seedlings in substrates composed of 40, 60 or 80 % sawdust and 20, 40 or 60 % pine bark with 5 g L-1 OsmocoteTM 14-14-14 N-P-K, obtaining a smaller growth to that of the species mentioned before. In these two cases, the increase in the proportion of sawdust and the low doses of fertilizer did not favor an adequate growth of the seedlings, as, when organic matter decays in the sawdust, the microorganisms compete for the available nutrients.

The Dickson quality index revealed significant differences at the substrate level (with the highest result for S1) and fertilizer (notably MulticoteTM); in interaction, the combination of S1 and MulticoteTM proved statistically superior. The Dickson quality index relates the height and diameter data to the aerial/root biomass ratio. In this case, a higher index indicates better quality plants; i.e. these individuals have a more balanced aerial/root biomass ratio (Oliet, 2000). The highest value in the present study corresponded to S1 in combination with MulticoteTM (0.5) (Table 2).

The production of P. pseudostrobus seedlings in substrates that include high proportions of sawdust (60-80 %), Reyes et al. (2005) and Aguilera et al. (2016a) exhibited acceptable values for the DQI, which indicates that the inclusion of raw sawdust in the substrate produces high quality seedlings.

Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentration

At the factor level, significant differences between substrates were registered only for nitrogen, notably in S1. Likewise, the differences in the interaction between the substrates and the fertilizers were significant only for this element, the highest concentration occurring in S1, with 8 g L-1 Osmocote PlusTM (Table 3).

Table 3 Mean values, standard error and significances by substrate, fertilizer and interaction of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium concentrations in the foliage of nine-month-old nursery-grown Pinus cooperi Blanco seedlings. 

Factor/Treatment Nitrogen (%) Phosphorus (%) Potassium (%)
Substrate
S1 1.3 ± 0.1 a 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.1 a
S2 1.0 ± 0.0 b 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.0 a
S3 1.0 ± 0.0 b 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.0 a
S4 0.9 ± 0.0 b 0.2 ± 0.0 a 0.9 ± 0.1 a
P <.0001 *** 0.2697 ns 0.7396 ns
Fertilizer
MulticoteTM 1.0 ± 0.0 a 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.0 a
Osmocote PlusTM 1.1 ± 0.1 a 0.2 ± 0.0 a 0.9 ± 0.1 a
P 0.6283 ns 0.6283 ns 0.3241 ns
Interaction
S1- MulticoteTM 1.2 ± 0.0 ab 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.1 a
S2- MulticoteTM 1.1 ± 0.1 bc 0.2 ± 0.0 a 0.9 ± 0.0 a
S3- MulticoteTM 1.0 ± 0.0 bc 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.1 a
S4- MulticoteTM 0.9 ± 0.0 c 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.1 a
S1- Osmocote PlusTM 1.4 ± 0.0 a 0.2 ± 0.0 a 0.9 ± 0.1 a
S2- Osmocote PlusTM 1.0 ± 0.0 bc 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.1 a
S3- Osmocote PlusTM 1.0 ± 0.1 bc 0.2 ± 0.0 a 1.0 ± 0.0 a
S4- Osmocote PlusTM 0.9 ± 0.0 bc 0.2 ± 0.0 a 0.9 ± 0.1 a
P <.0001 *** 0.5024 ns 0.8977 ns
RV 1.3-3.5 0.2-0.6 0.7-2.5

S1 = 46 % peat moss + 54 % composted pine bark; S2 = 30 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S3 = 25 % peat moss + 25 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S4 = 20 % peat moss + 30 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; MulticoteTM = 18N - 6P2O5 - 12K2O + 2MgO + micro nutrients; Osmocote PlusTM = 15N - 9P2O5 - 12K2O + micro nutrients. P = Limit probabilities in ANOVA. * = p<0.01; *** = p< 0.001; ns = Non significant. In each column, different letters for the same variable by factor indicate significant differences, according to Tukey (P < 0.05); RV = Recommended values (Prieto and Sáenz, 2011).

Based on the intervals suggested by Prieto and Sáenz (2011), the nitrogen values are good in the interaction of S1 with Osmocote PlusTM , and so are the concentrations of phosphorus and potassium in all the treatments (Table 3).

Pinus montezumae produced in a substrate with 70 % composted pine sawdust + 15 % composted pine bark + 15 % vermiculite and high doses of fertilizers (8 g L-1 of MulticoteTM and 8 g L-1 of Osmocote PlusTM) exhibited similar N, P and K values to those found in the present study (Aguilera et al., 2016b), although 20 % less sawdust was used, without composting, in the assay documented herein; this indicates that adding high doses of fertilizer with sawdust as a component of the substrate favors the growth of seedlings, as the nutritional demand of the microbioligical activity and the development of the plant is met by these doses. Furthermore, controlled-release fertilizers do not immediately release 100 % of the nutrients, as their role is to do so gradually, according to the level of development of the plant; this prevents losses from leaching, resulting in maximum efficiency of both the fertilizer and the plant (Rose et al., 2004).

Cost of the substrates

According to commercial estimates, substrates S2, S3 and S4, which contain raw sawdust, are 39.8, 43.2 and 46.6 % cheaper, respectively, than S1. Substrates with MulticoteTM were 21.6 % cheaper than those with OsmocoteTM. For this reason, the cheapest interactions are S2, S3 and S4, in combination with 8 g L-1 of MulticoteTM (Table 4). The difference in cost in the substrates and the inclusion of sawdust, which is a low-cost material, is due to the reduction in the proportion of peat moss, an expensive material.

Table 4 Cost of the substrates with fertilizer per Pinus cooperi Blanco plant, produced in polystyrene trays with 77 cavities of 170 mL each.  

Factor/Treatment Cost per plant (USD)
Substrate
S1 0.0179
S2 0.0108
S3 0.0102
S4 0.0095
Fertilizer
MulticoteTM 0.0038
Osmocote PlusTM 0.0062
Interaction
S1- MulticoteTM 0.0217
S2- MulticoteTM 0.0146
S3- MulticoteTM 0.0140
S4- MulticoteTM 0.0133
S1- Osmocote PlusTM 0.0241
S2- Osmocote PlusTM 0.0170
S3- Osmocote PlusTM 0.0164
S4- Osmocote PlusTM 0.0157

S1 = 46 % peat moss + 54 % composted pine bark; S2 = 30 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S3 = 25 % peat moss + 25 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; S4 = 20 % peat moss + 30 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust; MulticoteTM = 18N - 6P2O5 - 12K2O + 2MgO + micro nutrients; Osmocote PlusTM = 15N - 9P2O5 - 12 K2O + micro nutrients.

According to Escobar and Buamscha (2012), the best substrate will be the one that is available nearby the nursery and has the lowest price. In terms of these characteristics, S2 makes it possible to produce seedlings with acceptable characteristics for in field establishment, without health problems and with 39.8 % savings; therefore, it is a substrate with a potential for the production of the studied species.

Conclusions

Substrates containing raw pine sawdust have acceptable physical and chemical characteristics for the production of forest species, notably the treatment using substrate S2 ―30 % peat moss + 20 % composted pine bark + 50 % raw pine sawdust, combined with 8 g L-1 of MulticoteTM―, which allows the production of seedlings with adequate characteristics of height, diameter, total biomass and Dickson quality index; furthermore, this treatment reduces the production costs by 39.8 %. Based on these results, the raw pine sawdust included in the substrate is a viable alternative, with a lower cost, to produce nursery-grown Pinus cooperi seedlings.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Engineer Roberto Trujillo and to Roberto Trujillo Ayala, managers of the “General Francisco Villa” forest nursery, for the facilities provided for carrying out the experiment there, and to Conacyt, for the scholarship granted to the first author.

REFERENCES

Aguilera R., M., A. Aldrete, T. Martínez T. y V. M. Ordáz C. 2016a. Producción de Pinus pseudostrobus Lindl. con sustratos de aserrín y fertilizantes de liberación controlada. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales 7 (34): 7-19. [ Links ]

Aguilera R., M., A. Aldrete, T. Martínez T. y V. M. Ordáz C. 2016b. Producción de Pinus montezumae Lamb. con diferentes sustratos y fertilizantes de liberación controlada. Agrociencia 50 (1): 107-118. [ Links ]

Aleandri, M. P., G. Chilosi, M. Muganu, A. Vettraino, S. Marinari, M. Paolocci, E. Luccioli and A. Vannini. 2015. On farm production of compost from nursery green residues and its use to reduce peat for the production of olive pot plants. Scientia Horticulturae 193: 301-307. [ Links ]

Altland, J. E., J. C. Locke and C. R. Krause. 2014. Influence of pine bark particle size and pH on cation exchange capacity. HortTechology 24 (5): 554-559. [ Links ]

Buendía V., M. V., M. A. López L., V. M. Cetina A. and L. Diakite. 2016. Substrates and nutrient addition rates affect morphology and physiology of Pinus leiophylla seedlings in the nursery stage. iForest 10(1): 115-120. [ Links ]

Burés P., S. 1999. Introducción a los sustratos. Aspectos generales. In: Pastor S., J. N. (ed). Tecnología de sustratos. Aplicación a la producción viverística ornamental, hortícola y forestal. Universitat de Lleida. Lérida, España. pp. 19-36. [ Links ]

Castro G., S. L., A. Aldrete, J. López U. y V. M. Ordáz C. 2018. Efecto del envase, sustrato y fertilización en el crecimiento de Pinus greggii var. australis en vivero. Agrociencia 52 (1): 115-127. [ Links ]

Cervantes R., N., J. A. Prieto R., S. Rosales M. y J. A. Félix H. 2018. Crecimiento de mezquite en vivero bajo diferentes condiciones de sustrato, riego y retenedores de humedad. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 24 (1): 17-31. [ Links ]

Comisión Nacional Forestal (Conafor). 2016. Programa de producción de planta 2013 al 2016. México, D.F., México. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/200469/2016_Produccion_de_Planta.pdf (04 de mayo de 2018). [ Links ]

Cruz-Crespo, E., A. Can-Chulim, M. Sandoval-Villa, R. Bugarín-Montaya, A. Robles-Bermúdez y P. Juárez-López. 2013. Sustratos en la horticultura. Revista Bio Ciencias. 2 (2): 17-26. [ Links ]

Dickson, A., A. L. Leaf and J. F. Horsen. 1960. Quality appraisal of white spruce and white pine seedling stock in nurseries. Forestry Chronicle 36 (1): 10-13. [ Links ]

Dumroese K., R., T. D. Landis y K. M. Wilkinson. 2012. Riego y fertirriego. In: Buamscha M., G., L. T. Contardi, R. Dumroese K., J. A. Enricci, R. Escobar R., H. E. Gonda, D. F. Jacobs, T. D. Landis, T. Luna, J. G. Mexal y K. M. Wilkinson (eds.). Producción de plantas en viveros forestales. Consejo Federal de Inversiones, Centro de Investigación y Extensión Forestal Andino Patagónico, Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan Bosco. Exion. Buenos Aires, Argentina. pp. 115-125. http://ciefap.org.ar/documentos/pub/Produc_plantas_viv.pdf (11 de agosto de 2017). [ Links ]

Escobar R., R. 2012. Extracción y manejo de poscosecha. In: Buamscha M., G. , L. T. Contardi , R. Dumroese K., J. A. Enricci, R. Escobar R., H. E. Gonda, D. F. Jacobs, T. D. Landis, T. Luna, J. G. Mexal y K. M. Wilkinson (eds.). Producción de plantas en viveros forestales. Consejo Federal de Inversiones, Centro de Investigación y Extensión Forestal Andino Patagónico, Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan Bosco Exion. Buenos Aires, Argentina. pp. 171-186. http://ciefap.org.ar/documentos/pub/Produc_plantas_viv.pdf (11 de agosto de 2017). [ Links ]

Escobar R., R. y G. M. Buamscha. 2012. Sustrato o medio de crecimiento. In: Buamscha M., G. , L. T. Contardi , R. Dumroese K., J. A. Enricci, R. Escobar R., H. E. Gonda, D. F. Jacobs, T. D. Landis, T. Luna, J. G. Mexal y K. M. Wilkinson (eds.). Producción de plantas en viveros forestales. Consejo Federal de Inversiones, Centro de Investigación y Extensión Forestal Andino Patagónico, Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia San Juan Bosco. Buenos Aires, Argentina. Exion. pp. 89-113. http://ciefap.org.ar/documentos/pub/Produc_plantas_viv.pdf (11 de agosto de 2017). [ Links ]

Fregoso M., J. N., J. R. Goche T., J. G. Rutiaga Q., R. F. González L., M. Bocanegra S. y J. A. Chávez S. 2017. Usos alternativos de los desechos de la industria del aserrío. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 23 (2): 243-260. [ Links ]

García C., O., G. Alcántar G., I. Cabrera R., F. Gavi R. y V. Volke H. 2001. Evaluación de sustratos para la producción de Epipremnum aureum y Spathiphyllum wallisii cultivadas en maceta. Terra Latinoamericana 19 (3): 249-258. [ Links ]

Hernández-Zarate, L., A. Aldrete, V. M Ordaz-Chaparro, J. López-Upton y M. Á. López-López. 2014. Crecimiento de Pinus montezumae Lamb. en vivero influenciado por diferentes mezclas de sustratos. Agrociencia 48 (6): 627-637. [ Links ]

Landis, T. D. 1990. Growing Media. In: Landis, T. D., R. W. Tinus, S. E. Mc Donald and J. P. Barnett (eds.). The Container Tree Nursery Manual. Vol. 2. Agric. Handbook 674. USDA Forest Service. Washington, DC, USA. pp. 41-85. [ Links ]

Maldonado B., K. R., A. Aldrete, J. López U., H. Vaquera H. y V. M. Cetina A. 2011. Producción de Pinus greggii engelm. en mezclas de sustrato con hidrogel y riego en vivero. Agrociencia 45 (3): 389-398. [ Links ]

Mateo S., J. J., R. Bonifacio V., S. R. Pérez R., L Mohedano C. y J. Capulín G. 2011. Producción de (Cedrela odorata L.), en sustrato a base de aserrín crudo en sistema tecnificado en Tecpan de Galeana, Guerrero, México. Ra Ximhai 7 (1): 123-132. [ Links ]

Mathers, H. M., S. B. Lowe, C. Scagel, D. K. Struve and L. T. Case. 2007. Abiotic factors influencing root growth of woody nursery plants in containers. HortTechnology 17 (2): 151-162. [ Links ]

Oliet, J. 2000. La calidad de la postura forestal en vivero. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos y de Montes de Córdoba. Córdoba, España. 93 p. [ Links ]

Oliet, J., M. L. Segura, F. M. Domínguez, E. Blanco, R. Serrada, M. López A. y F. Artero. 1999. Los fertilizantes de liberación controlada lenta aplicados a la producción de planta forestal de vivero. Efecto de dosis y formulaciones sobre la calidad de Pinus halepensis Mill. Investigación Agraria: Sistemas de Recursos Forestales 8 (1): 207-228. [ Links ]

Prieto R., J. A., J. A. Sigala R., S. Pinedo L., J. L. García P., R. E. Madrid A. y J. M. Mejía B. 2009. Calidad de planta en viveros del estado de Durango. Campo Experimental Valle de Guadiana. Centro de Investigación Regional Norte Centro. INIFAP. Durango, Dgo., México. 81 p. [ Links ]

Prieto R., J. A. y J. T. Sáenz R. 2011. Indicadores de calidad de planta en viveros forestales de la Sierra Madre Occidental. Libro Técnico Núm. 3. Campo Experimental Valle del Guadiana. Centro de Investigación Regional Norte Centro. INIFAP. Durango, Dgo., México. 210 p. [ Links ]

Reyes R., J., A. Aldrete, V. M Cetina A. y J. López U. 2005. Producción de plántulas de Pinus pseudostrobus var. apulcensis en sustratos a base de aserrín. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 11 (2): 105-110. [ Links ]

Rose, R., D. L. Haase y E. Arellano. 2004. Fertilizantes de entrega controlada: potencial para mejorar la productividad de la reforestación. Bosque 25(2): 89-100. [ Links ]

Sánchez C., T., A Aldrete, V. M. Cetina A. y J. López U. 2008. Caracterización de medios de crecimiento compuestos por corteza de pino y aserrín. Madera y Bosques 14 (2): 41-49. [ Links ]

Sandoval M., C., V. M. Cetina A., R. Yeaton y L. Mohedano C. 2000. Sustratos y polímeros en la producción de planta de Pinus cembroides Zucc., bajo condiciones de invernadero. Revista Chapingo, Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente 6 (2): 1-143. [ Links ]

Statistical Analysis System (SAS). 2002. SAS. Version 9.0. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC USA. n/p. [ Links ]

Secretaría de Economía. 2016. NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2016. Certificación de la operación de viveros forestales. Diario Oficial de la Federación. 194 p. http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5464460&fecha=07/12/2016 (9 de abril de 2017). [ Links ]

Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Semarnat). 2015. Anuario estadístico de la producción forestal 2015. México. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/282928/2015.pdf (25 de agosto de 2017). [ Links ]

Serrada, R. 2000. Apuntes de repoblaciones forestales. FUCOVASA. Madrid, España. 77 p. [ Links ]

Tian, N., S. Fang, W. Yang, X. Shang and F. Xaingxiang. 2017. Influence of container type and growth medium on seedling growth and root morphology of Cyclocarya paliurus during nursery culture. Forests 8 (387): 1-16. [ Links ]

Zumkeller S., D., J. A. Galbiatti, R. C. de Paula y J. L. Soto G. 2009. Producción de plantas de Tabebuia heptaphylla en diferentes sustratos y niveles de irrigación, en condiciones de invernadero. Bosque 30 (1): 27-35. [ Links ]

Received: November 08, 2017; Accepted: May 31, 2018

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Contribution by author

María Mónica González Orozco: establishment of the experiment, collection, capture and statistical analysis of the data and drafting of the document; José Ángel Prieto Ruíz: design and establishment of the experiment, review and editing of the document; Arnulfo Aldrete: counselling on the treatments to be evaluated and experimental design to be used, as well as review of the document; José Ciro Hernández Díaz: counselling on the results of the analysis of costs and review of the document; Jorge Armando Chávez Simental: review of the document; Rodrigo Rodríguez Laguna: review of the document.

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons