SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.31Prediction of the impact of climate change on Abies religiosa (Kunth) Schltdl. et Cham. and the feasibility of assisted migrationDynamics of land surface temperature from an urban heat island perspective in the North of Mexico author indexsubject indexsearch form
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO

Share


Revista Chapingo serie ciencias forestales y del ambiente

On-line version ISSN 2007-4018Print version ISSN 2007-3828

Rev. Chapingo ser. cienc. for. ambient vol.31  Chapingo Jan./Dec. 2025  Epub Apr 09, 2026

https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2024.09.039 

Scientific articles

Growth of Pinus durangensis Mart. in response to substrate types and controlled-release fertilizer rates in a nursery

Manuel A. González-Alemán1 

Manuel Aguilera-Rodríguez2 

José C. Hernández-Díaz3 

Christian Wehenkel3 

Rosa E. Madrid-Aispuro4 

José Á. Prieto-Ruiz

1Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y Ambientales. Av. Papaloapan y bulevar Durango s/n., col. Valle del Sur. C. P. 34120. Durango, Durango, México.

2Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, División de Ciencias Forestales. km 38.5 carretera federal México-Texcoco. C. P. 56230. Texcoco, Estado de México, México.

3Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Instituto de Silvicultura e Industria de la Madera. Bulevar Guadiana 501, fracc. Ciudad Universitaria. C. P. 34120. Durango, Durango, México.

4Colegio de Posgraduados. Campus Montecillo. km 36.5 carretera federal México-Texcoco. C. P. 56230. Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México, México.


Abstract

Introduction

Substrate and fertilization are essential to produce forest species with favorable morphological characteristics.

Objectives

To evaluate the morphological growth and nutrient assimilation in Pinus durangensis Mart. seedlings, and to estimate costs in response to the use of three substrate mixtures combined with three rates of a controlled-release fertilizer in a nursery.

Materials and methods

The plants were grown under the effect of nine treatments consisting of three substrates with varying proportions of fresh pine sawdust, composted pine bark, and peat moss, combined with three application rates of the controlled-release fertilizer (CRF) Multicote® 8-month (18-6-12 N-P-K), arranged in a randomized block experimental design. Plant height, stem diameter, dry biomass, nutrient uptake, and production costs were evaluated after 11 months.

Results

Growth variables and nutrient uptake showed statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among treatments. The combination of 50 % fresh sawdust + 25 % composted bark + 25 % peat moss, with CRF applied at rates of 9 and 12 g∙L-1, produced high-quality plants in accordance with the Mexican Standard NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2014. However, the 9 g∙L-1 rate resulted in lower production costs.

Conclusion

A specific combination of substrate and CRF application rate was identified that most effectively promotes the growth and nutrient uptake of P. durangensis seedlings in the nursery; furthermore, it reduces production costs.

Keywords fresh sawdust; composted bark; plant quality; Multicote; peat moss

Resumen

Introducción

El sustrato y la fertilización son fundamentales para la producción de planta de especies forestales con características morfológicas propicias.

Objetivos

Evaluar el crecimiento morfológico y la asimilación de nutrientes en plantas de Pinus durangensis Mart. y estimar los costos en respuesta al uso de tres mezclas de sustratos en combinación con tres dosis de un fertilizante de liberación controlada en vivero.

Materiales y métodos

Las plantas se produjeron bajo el efecto de nueve tratamientos compuestos por tres sustratos con proporciones diferentes de aserrín fresco de pino, corteza compostada de pino y turba de musgo, combinados con tres dosis del fertilizante de liberación controlada (FLC) Multicote® 8 meses (18-6-12 de N-P-K) en un diseño experimental de bloques al azar. A los 11 meses se evaluó altura, diámetro, biomasa seca, asimilación de nutrientes y costos de las plantas.

Resultados

Las variables de crecimiento y la asimilación de nutrientes tuvieron diferencias significativas (p ≤ 0.05) entre tratamientos. La combinación de 50 % aserrín fresco + 25 % corteza compostada + 25 % turba de musgo, con FLC en dosis de 9 y 12 g∙L-1 produjo planta de calidad de conformidad con la norma NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2014; sin embargo, la dosis de 9 g∙L-1 implicó un costo menor.

Conclusión

Se identificó una combinación de sustrato y dosis de FLC que favorece más el crecimiento y asimilación de nutrimentos de plantas de P. durangensis en vivero; además, reduce los costos de producción.

Palabras clave aserrín fresco; corteza compostada; calidad de planta; Multicote; turba de musgo

Introduction

Between 2001 and 2022, an average of 208 746 ha were deforested annually in Mexico (Comisión Nacional Forestal [CONAFOR], 2023). During the last three decades, reforestation efforts and the construction of soil and water conservation works have been carried out to counteract the deterioration of forest resources. Specifically, during the 2013-2018 period, an average of 167 554 ha were reforested each year, equivalent to 167.5 million seedlings (CONAFOR, 2021). However, the deforestation deficit persists, and first-year survival rates remain below 65 % (Burney et al., 2015; Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social [CONEVAL], 2018; Prieto et al., 2016). In the case of Pinus durangensis Mart., the average survival rate was just 34 % after 2.5 years of planting in the northwest region of the state of Durango (Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2022). Based on results from different planting sites, it has been demonstrated that seedling quality is critical to survival and growth, and it is directly influenced by nursery inputs and management practices (Haase & Davis, 2017; Villar Salvador et al., 2021). To ensure that nursery-grown seedlings develop the required morphological and physiological characteristics, it is essential to apply management practices that match the production process with the climatic and soil conditions of the planting site (Grossnickle & MacDonald, 2018).

Among the cultural practices considered for nursery plant production, the following stand out: sowing date, irrigation technique, nutrition methods, management of environmental conditions, as well as pest and disease prevention and control. Another important aspect to consider is the characteristics of inputs, such as germplasm, containers, substrate, fertilizer, water, and infrastructure (Grossnickle, 2018; Madrid-Aispuro et al., 2021).

Experiences in the production of forest species seedlings in Mexico suggest a continuous need to explore alternatives for substrates made from locally or regionally sourced materials that are low-cost and readily available. It is important that these substrates are environmentally friendly while enabling the development of plants with quality equal to or better than those produced with traditional inputs, such as peat moss, vermiculite, and perlite, which are imported from Canada and Europe (Aguilera-Rodríguez et al., 2023; Gayosso-Rodríguez et al., 2016).

In Mexico, in most states where timber harvesting occurs, the use of residues derived from the processing of forest products, such as composted pine bark and uncomposted (fresh) sawdust from conifers and hardwoods, are already options considered in several forest nurseries (Aguilera-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Cervantes-Rodríguez et al., 2018; González et al., 2018). This is because these by-products are abundantly available, and cost less compared to the materials currently in use (peat moss, vermiculite, and perlite). From 2009 to 2018, roundwood forest production ranged annually from 5.8 to 8.3 million cubic meters (Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente [SEMARNAT], 2021). Due to the sawing process, approximately 12 to 14 % of that volume is converted into sawdust (Mateo Sánchez et al., 2023), representing an availability exceeding 690 000 m3 annually. Therefore, its use as a component of nursery substrates is a viable option.

Concurrent with the use of fresh sawdust and composted bark as substrate components, the use of controlled-release fertilizers (CRFs), either as an adjunct or replacement for soluble fertilizers, is increasingly adopted in nursery production. CRFs have demonstrated efficacy in enhancing plant growth by providing a sustained nutrient release aligned with plant uptake patterns, thereby minimizing nutrient losses through leaching and volatilization and conferring environmental advantages. Furthermore, CRFs simplify application and reduce operational costs since they are incorporated into the substrate only once, eliminating the need for repetitive labor typically required for the periodic preparation and application of water-soluble fertilizers through irrigation (Aguilera-Rodríguez et al., 2021; Landis & Dumroese, 2009; Rose et al., 2004).

Continuous research is essential to establish the optimal input ratios for substrates and to determine the appropriate fertilizer doses for each species, based on their growth traits and production management practices. This study aimed to assess the morphological growth response of P. durangensis seedlings to three substrate mixtures combined with three doses of a controlled-release fertilizer (CRF); additionally, to estimate nutrient uptake in the seedlings due to the fertilizer and to determine production costs based on the substrates and fertilization rates studied. The hypothesis was that at least one combination of substrate and fertilizer rate would enhance growth and nutrient uptake while reducing production costs of P. durangensis seedlings in the nursery.

Materials and Methods

Study site

The study was conducted at the forest nursery of the Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Sciences, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, located in Victoria de Durango, Durango, Mexico (24° 01’ 13” N, 104° 68’ 25” W), at an elevation of 1 890 m. The site has an average annual temperature of 17 °C (with the coldest month averaging 1.7 °C and the warmest month 31 °C) and an average annual precipitation of 500 mm (Reyes Rodríguez et al., 2024).

Growth conditions

The plants grew for 11 months under three environmental conditions: a) a forest greenhouse covered with 720 µm milky white plastic and 50 % black shade cloth beneath the plastic film (September 2020-February 2021); b) 50 % black shade cloth (March-May 2021); and c) open field (June-July 2021). Ambient temperature and humidity were monitored using an Elitech® hygrothermometer (Table 1).

Table 1 Predominant temperature and humidity conditions during the development of the Pinus durangensis seedling production trial in the nursery. 

Period Greenhouse (September
2020-February 2021)
Shade net 50 %
(March-May 2021)
Open field
(June-July 2021)
Maximum temperature (°C) 32.8 39.2 44.2
Minimum temperature (°C) -1.1 -0.2 9.2
Average temperature (°C) 15.9 20.3 23.4
Maximum humidity (%) 77.1 87.5 89.3
Minimum humidity (%) 15.7 9.1 15.0
Average humidity (%) 47.0 36.7 57.5

Substrate porosity

Total porosity, air-filled porosity, and water-holding capacity of the substrates were determined using the methodology proposed by Landis et al. (1990) (Table 2).

Table 2 Porosity of the three substrate mixtures used in the Pinus durangensis seedling production trial in the nursery. 

Substate FS-CB-TM (%) Total porosity (%) Air-filled porosity (%) Water-holding capacity (%)
50-25-25 60.0 39.2 19.5
35-25-40 55.2 36.2 18.9
0-50-50 55.5 32.8 22.6
Reference value* 60 - 80 25 - 35 25 - 55

*Landis et al. (1990). FS = fresh uncomposted sawdust, CB = composted bark, TM = peat moss. Percentage calculated by volume.

Treatments and experimental design

A total of nine treatments were evaluated, corresponding to combinations of three substrates prepared with different ratios of fresh sawdust (FS), composted pine bark (CB), and peat moss (PM), along with three application rates of Multicote® controlled-release fertilizer, with an approximate release period of eight months. The CRF formulation is Nitrogen (18 %) + Phosphorus (6 %) + Potassium (12 %) + Boron (0.03 %) + Copper (0.045 %) + Iron (0.4 %) + Manganese (0.055 %) + Molybdenum (0.01 %) + Zinc (0.06 %).

The treatments were arranged in a completely randomized experimental design with a 3 × 3 factorial structure (three substrates and three fertilizer rates), with four replicates per treatment. Each replicate consisted of one expanded polystyrene forestry tray (15 cm in length and 4 cm in upper diameter) containing 77 cavities, each with a volume of 170 mL.

Table 3 Substrates and fertilization doses used in the nursery production of Pinus durangensis seedlings.  

Treatment Substrate component (%) Multicote® (g∙L-1)
Fresh, uncomposted sawdust Composted bark Peat moss
T1 50 25 25 6
T2 35 25 40 6
T3 0 50 50 6
T4 50 25 25 9
T5 35 25 40 9
T6 0 50 50 9
T7 50 25 25 12
T8 35 25 40 12
T9 0 50 50 12

Seedling production

Seeding was carried out on August 21, 2020. Prior to sowing, the cavities of the trays were treated with a solution composed of 10 L of water, 4 L of vinyl sealer, and 0.6 kg of Cu (OH)2 (copper hydroxide), to promote chemical pruning of the lateral roots of the seedlings. During the production process, irrigation was applied three times per week. The irrigation intensity depended on the prevailing climatic conditions, but efforts were made to ensure that moisture was consistently present in at least the lower two-thirds of the substrate volume within the container to avoid limiting plant growth. Additionally, weeding was performed monthly. During the first three months of seedling growth, fungus gnats (Bradysia impatiens Johannsen) were present in the substrate mixtures; to control them, the insecticide Denim® was applied every two weeks at a rate of 2 mL∙L-1 of water.

Evaluated variables

At 11 months of growth, 10 seedlings from the center of each experimental unit were evaluated. The substrate was removed from the root ball of each plant, and the following variables were measured: a) height, measured with a ruler graduated in millimeters, b) Root collar diameter, measured with a Truper® Caldi-6MP digital caliper (measurement range: 0.01 mm to 150 mm), c) Dry biomass; individual whole-plant samples were placed in kraft paper bags and dried in a forced-air oven (ECOSHEL®, model 9052) at 75 °C for 72 hours, then weighed on an analytical balance (Velab® VE-204) with a precision of 0.01 g. The Dickson Quality Index (DQI) was calculated using height, root collar diameter, and root, shoot, and total dry biomass.

The concentration and content of nutrients (N-P-K) were estimated from the total needle biomass of the sampled plants. For each treatment, 20 g of vegetative material were selected, obtained from 12 randomly chosen plants. The material was ground using a Retsch SM 300® mill and analyzed at the Laboratory of Centro Nacional de Investigación Disciplinaria en Relación Agua, Suelo, Plantas, Atmósfera (CENID-RASPA) of the Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP). Nitrogen (N) was quantified using the Kjeldahl method; phosphorus (P) by wet digestion with nitric-perchloric acid and colorimetry using ammonium metavanadate; and potassium (K) by atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Additionally, vector nomograms were developed to evaluate the effect of fertilization on aboveground dry biomass. This analysis considered the mean values per treatment for N content (X-axis), N concentration (Y-axis), and aboveground biomass (Z-axis), expressed in relative terms, with the 6 g∙L-1 fertilization dose used as the reference and normalized to 100.

Regarding costs, in June 2025, three commercial price quotes were obtained for the inputs used as substrates (raw sawdust, composted bark, and peat moss) and for the Multicote® 8 fertilizer from suppliers located in Victoria de Durango, Durango, Mexico. Based on these prices, the unit production costs were estimated for each substrate mixture and fertilization rate evaluated.

Statistical analysis

A database was compiled in Excel using the recorded growth data. To analyze the results, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with the PROC GLM procedure in SAS 9.4® (SAS System, Inc. 2009). When significant differences were detected, Tukey’s multiple comparison test (p ≤ 0.05) was applied to determine the most effective treatments. The assumptions of data normality and homogeneity of variances were verified using the Shapiro-Wilk and Levene tests, respectively.

Results and Discussion

Morphological characteristics

The interaction between substrate and fertilization factors showed that treatment T7(50 % FS + 25 % CB + 25 % PM + 12 g∙L-1 of Multicote® controlled-release fertilizer) was the most favorable. This was followed by treatment T4, which used the same substrate mixture but a lower fertilizer dose (9 g∙L-1). Other treatments with positive results included T2 and T8, both consisting of 35 % FS + 25 % CB + 40 % PM, with fertilizer doses of 6 and 12 g∙L-1, respectively. The lowest values were recorded in treatment T3, which used a substrate of 50 % CB + 50 % PM combined with 6 g∙L-1 of Multicote® (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4 ANOVA results for the variables evaluated in response to three substrate types and three fertilization rates during nursery growth of Pinus durangensis

Factor Height (cm) Diameter (mm) Total biomass (g) Dickson Quality Index
Substrate 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
Fertilization rate 0.927 0.0003 0.0001 0.0004
Substrate*fertilization rate (Treatment) 0.002 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Table 5 Morphological variables of Pinus durangensis after 11 months of nursery growth under three substrate mixtures and three fertilization rates. 

Treatment Substrate FS + CB
+ PM (%)
Fertilization
(g∙L-1)
Height (cm) Diameter (mm) Total biomass (g) Dickson Quality
Index
T1 50-25-25 6 17.3 ± 0.45 ab 5.6 ± 0.07 bcd 5.6 ± 0.14 ab 1.17 ± 0.03 abc
T2 35-25-40 6 17.1 ± 0.37 ab 5.6 ± 0.09 abc 5.8 ± 0.18 ab 1.23 ± 0.04 ab
T3 0-50-50 6 16.1 ± 0.39 ab 5.2 ± 0.08 d 4.8 ± 0.16 c 1.02 ± 0.04 c
T4 50-25-25 9 17.7 ± 0.46 a 5.9 ± 0.09 ab 6.2 ± 0.19 ab 1.32 ± 0.05 ab
T5 35-25-40 9 16.8 ± 0.32 ab 5.5 ± 0.10 bcd 5.5 ± 0.16 bc 1.12 ± 0.05 bc
T6 0-50-50 9 16.0 ± 0.30 ab 5.5 ± 0.10 cd 5.7 ± 0.12 ab 1.21 ± 0.04 ab
T7 50-25-25 12 17.2 ± 0.42 ab 6.0 ± 0.11 a 6.4 ± 0.18 a 1.36 ± 0.05 a
T8 35-25-40 12 17.1 ± 0.37 ab 5.8 ± 0.11 abc 6.1 ± 0.21 ab 1.28 ± 0.06 ab
T9 0-50-50 12 15.7 ± 0.40 b 5.5 ± 0.11 bcd 5.7 ± 0.16 ab 1.16 ± 0.04 abc

FS = fresh uncomposted sawdust, CB = composted bark, PM = peat moss. Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Based on morphological quality standards for forest species used in reforestation programs, the Mexican Standard NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2014 (Secretaría de Economía, 2014), in its normative Appendix C, states that P. durangensis seedlings aged 10 to 12 months should have a height between 10 and 25 cm and a minimum stem diameter of 4 mm. In this study, all treatments met the minimum criteria and exhibited the necessary morphological characteristics for use in reforestation; however, some treatments stood above others, allowing the identification of the most favorable substrate and fertilization combinations.

The results demonstrate that the use of FS and CB, along with PM, created favorable conditions in the root system for the growth of P. durangensis. Additionally, ambient temperature and humidity (15.9 to 23.4 °C and 36.7 to 57.5 %, respectively) were conducive to plant growth (Table 1). Porosity also played an important role in these results; only the substrate composed of 50 % FS + 25 % CB + 25 % PM met the recommended total porosity value, and the substrate with 50 % CB + 50 % PM was within the appropriate range for air porosity. However, the values for all three substrates did not exceed the recommended ranges for these variables by more than 5.5 % (Table 2). This indicates that the available irrigation water provided suitable conditions for assimilation by the plants, as observed by Castro-Garibay et al. (2019), where Pinus greggii var. australis showed the highest amount of available water (30 %) with a substrate of 60 % sawdust + 20 % bark + 20 % PM, compared to a substrate of 60 % PM + 20 % vermiculite + 20 % perlite, which had a value of 19 %.

For P. durangensis, Hernández-Velasco et al. (2022) reported that plants reached 22.6 cm in height and 5.2 mm in basal diameter using a substrate composed of 50 % base mix (28 % PM + 10 % agrolite + 12 % vermiculite) and 50 % CB, with a particle size of 3 mm, along with nutrition based on controlled-release fertilizer and soluble fertilizer irrigation, after 15 months of greenhouse growth. In that study, the plants exceeded the attributes stipulated in the Mexican Standard NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2014, likely because the plants were older compared to those in the present study (11 months). In P. cooperi Blanco, González et al. (2018) analyzed four substrates based on FS, CB, and PM with controlled-release fertilizer and found that the substrate containing 46 % PM + 54 % CB + 8 g∙L-1 of Multicote® contributed to better morphological performance. However, plants grown in the substrate with 30 % PM + 20 % CB + 50 % FS + 8 g∙L-1 of Multicote® also exhibited favorable growth, and the substrate cost was 39.8 % lower.

Other positive experiences related to the use of sawdust as part of the substrate are reported by Aguilera-Rodríguez et al. (2016), where a mixture of 70 % composted pine sawdust, 15 % pine composted bark, and 15 % vermiculite allowed the production of P. montezumae Lamb. plants with appropriate morphological characteristics. Likewise, Hernández-Zarate et al. (2014), also working with P. montezumae, found that substrates composed of 70 % FS + 10 % PM + 10 % perlite + 10 % vermiculite and 10 % CB + 70 % FS + 10 % perlite + 10 % vermiculite resulted in similar and favorable morphological growth values compared to the control substrate (60 % PM + 20 perlite + 20 % vermiculite).

Regarding controlled-release fertilizers, Heras-Marcial et al. (2023) studied the effects of different doses on the growth of P. patula under nursery conditions and found that 8 g∙L-1 of 8-month Multicote Agri® combined with 4 and 6 g∙L-1 of 12-month Multicote® provided adequate morphological growth. N-P-K constitutes a group of essential nutrients that promote plant growth. N is fundamental in physiological processes such as photosynthesis and cell division; P is present in many compounds within plant cells, including sugars, phosphates, lipids, nucleic acids, and free nucleotides (Fathi, 2022; Taiz & Zeiger, 2006); and K contributes to the osmotic potential of cells and root tissues, facilitating cell elongation and plant turgor (Larriva Coronel, 2003). Undoubtedly, controlled-release fertilizers have been formulated based on plant needs, but they must be applied in the correct formulation and dosage. In the present study, Multicote® (18-6-12 N-P-K) at a dose of 9 g∙L-1 was the most appropriate based on its effectiveness and cost. Conversely, Martínez-Nevárez et al. (2023) evaluated doses of 4, 6, and 8 g·L-1 of the same fertilizer and found that the intermediate dose was the most favorable for the quality of P. cooperi plants grown under nursery conditions.

Nutrient assimilation

The nutrient concentration in the needles of P. durangensis plants showed statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) among the three fertilization rates evaluated (Table 6). Regarding nitrogen (N), the primary element involved in height growth, the CRF at a rate of 12 g∙L-1 of substrate produced the highest nutrient concentration values. However, when only 6 and 9 g∙L-1 were applied, the concentrations still reached the recommended levels established by Landis et al. (2010) (1.3-3.5 %). In contrast, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed in P and K concentrations among fertilization rates. Furthermore, the values obtained were below the minimum recommended for conifers (0.2-0.6 % P and 0.7-2.5 % K; Landis et al., 2010), which may be attributed to the fertilizer used containing lower amounts of P and K than required.

Table 6 Average nutrient concentration and content in the foliage of Pinus durangensis 12 months after sowing under nursery conditions. 

Nutrient Multicote® Fertilizer rates (g∙L-1) Reference value (%)*
6 9 12
Nutrient concentration (%)
N 1.32 ± 0.09 b 1.52 ± 0.07 b 1.95 ± 0.02 a 1.3-3.5
P 0.12 ± 0.00 a 0.13 ± 0.01 a 0.12 ± 0.01 a 0.2-0.6
K 0.55 ± 0.06 a 0.59 ± 0.05 a 0.64 ± 0.02 a 0.7-2.5
Nutrient concentration (mg∙plant-1)
N 4.40 ± 0.23 b 5.55 ± 0.48 b 7.63 ± 0.23 a
P 0.40 ± 0.02 a 0.47 ± 0.03 a 0.49 ± 0.03 a
K 1.80 ± 0.06 b 2.14 ± 0.11 ab 2.49 ± 0.08 a

± Standard error of the mean. Means with different letters in the same row indicate significant differences according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.005). *Landis et al. (2010).

Based on morphological growth and nutrient assimilation in the plants, the 9 and 12 g·L-1 rates of the eight-month Multicote® CRF are considered adequate to meet the necessary requirements for use. However, since they do not produce the minimum recommended concentrations of P and K, it is advisable to use a CRF with a higher percentage of these elements-for example, a 17-17-17 or 20-20-20 formulation.

The nutrient indicators obtained in this study showed higher nitrogen and lower phosphorus and potassium concentrations compared to those reported by González et al. (2018) for P. cooperi. These authors reported N-P-K concentrations of 1.0 %, 0.2 %, and 1.0 %, respectively, when using substrates composed of 50 % forest soil (FS) mixed with PM and CB in different ratios, and applying 8 g∙L-1 of Multicote®. Although these values were below the recommended levels, the plant quality indicators were satisfactory. Aguilera et al. (2021) produced P. patula seedlings using 11 substrates containing 10 % vermiculite + 10 % perlite + 20 % CB + 60 % sawdust from various conifer and broadleaf species, combined with 4 g∙L-1 of Multicote® 18-6-12 (N-P-K) and 4 g∙L-1 of Multicote® 12-24-12 (N-P-K). The average N-P-K concentrations obtained were 1.39 %, 0.29 %, and 0.49 %, respectively. Aguilera et al. (2021) also reported similar values-1.44 %, 0.22 %, and 0.51 % of N-P-K for the same species, using plants 20 to 30 cm tall grown from natural regeneration. In both growth conditions, the evaluated variables showed satisfactory results.

The graphical vector analysis showed a predominant direction in relation to the aboveground biomass. CRF at doses of 6 and 9 g·L-1 of substrate promoted greater luxury consumption for all three nutrients. Luxury consumption is indicated by the shift of each vector toward the upper right corner in each graph; in other words, there was a greater increase in both the concentration and content of each nutrient (Figure 1). According to Ávila-Angulo et al. (2020), the goal of fertilization is to increase nutrient content in plant biomass, especially when plants are established in low-fertility soils, because this nutrient content acts as a reserve during the later field stage to support plant rooting while it adapts to the new site conditions.

Figure 1 Vector diagram for nutrient analysis in the aboveground dry biomass of Pinus durangensis (Multicote® CFR) treated with controlled-release fertilizer at doses of 6, 9, and 12 g∙L-1 of substrate under nursery conditions. 

Zamunér et al. (2012) found adequate mineral nutrient assimilation with 6 g∙L-1 of CRF (15-9-12 N-P-K) and nutrient excess with 9 g∙L-1 of Multicote®. In another study with P. montezumae, Aguilera et al. (2016) reported that high doses of Multicote® CRF (8 g∙L⁻¹) maximize nitrogen concentration.

Production costs due to substrate and fertilizer

According to commercial price quotes obtained in June 2025 in Victoria de Durango, Durango, Mexico (Table 7), the lowest costs for materials used as substrates and fertilizer corresponded to the plants in treatments T1 and T4 (0.49 and 0.57 MXN per plant, respectively). Treatments T7, T2, and T5 fall within an intermediate cost range of 0.62 to 0.72 MXN per plant, while the remaining treatments exceeded 0.77 MXN per plant, reaching a maximum value of 0.95 MXN per plant (T12); that is, nearly double the cost of the lowest-cost treatment (T1). This evaluation only includes the costs of substrates and fertilizer doses, which were the focus of the study; however, a comprehensive analysis should consider the entire production system, including infrastructure, production inputs, and labor.

Table 7 Costs of substrates and fertilizers used in the production of Pinus durangensis seedlings under nursery conditions. 

Treatment Cost per component (MXN·L-1) Substrate cost (1 + 2 + 3) = 4 (MXN·L-1) Fertilizer cost (5) (MXN·L-1) Substrate cost + fertilizer (4 + 5) = 6 (MXN·L-1) Cost per plant (6/5.35*) (MXN)
FS (1) BC (2) PM (3)
T1 0.075 0.33 1.37 1.78 0.84 2.62 0.49
T2 0.053 0.33 2.20 2.58 0.84 3.42 0.64
T3 0 0.65 2.75 3.40 0.84 4.24 0.78
T4 0.075 0.33 1.37 1.78 1.26 3.04 0.57
T5 0.053 0.33 2.20 2.58 1.26 3.84 0.72
T6 0 0.65 2.75 3.40 1.26 4.66 0.87
T7 0.075 0.33 1.37 1.78 1.68 3.46 0.65
T8 0.053 0.33 2.20 2.58 1.68 4.26 0.80
T9 0 0.65 2.75 3.40 1.68 5.08 0.95

*A substrate volume of 170 mL per cavity was considered. With 1 L of substrate, 5.88 cavities can be filled; however, due to substrate compaction when filling the tray, an additional 10 % substrate was accounted for. Therefore, 1 L of substrate fills 5.35* cavities, which corresponds to the number of plants to be produced. The costs of each input are as follows: 0.15 MXN·L-1 for fresh uncomposted sawdust, 1.3 MXN·L-1 for composted bark, 5.5 MXN·L-1 for peat moss, and 140 MXN·L-1 for Multicote®8. FS = fresh uncomposted sawdust; CB = composted bark; PM = peat moss.

The lower costs of treatments T1 and T4 were mainly influenced by the higher use of sawdust compared to peat moss, since the former is a low-cost material (0.15 MXN·L-1) compared to peat moss (5.5 MXN·L-1). Although the fertilizer dose used is another influencing factor, it was less determinant in the final cost per plant. Overall, the treatments that most promoted plant growth (T7, T4, and T2) fall within an intermediate cost range and are cheaper compared to treatment T6, which could be considered the control.

The results indicate that using sawdust in a higher ratio than peat moss produces a lower-cost substrate and plants with good quality (Table 5), which is consistent with González et al. (2018), who studied the costs of substrate mixtures for P. cooperi including FS, CB, and PM. Those authors found a 39.8 % difference in substrate cost (50 % FS + 20 % CB + 30 % PM vs. 46 % PM + 54 % CB), due to the inclusion of sawdust-a low-cost material-and the reduced proportion of peat moss, which is more expensive. A similar outcome was reported by Martínez-Casas et al. (2024), who found that costs for P. durangensis were reduced by 28.4 % when using Multicote® fertilizer combined with equal parts PM and bark, and by 34.6 % with the combination of PM (50 %) + bark (25 %) + sawdust (25 %) compared to the use of PM (50 %) + vermiculite (25 %) + perlite (25 %).

Currently, in Mexico, sawdust and bark are materials that are available and abundant in areas with commercial timber harvesting; these residues amount to more than 690 000 m3∙year-1, representing between 12 % and 14 % of the annual sawn volume (Mateo Sánchez et al., 2023). This data reinforces the point made by Buamscha et al. (2012), who state that, in addition to producing quality seedlings, the best substrate is one that is readily available, located close to the nursery, and low in cost.

Conclusions

The incorporation of raw sawdust and composted pine bark into mixtures with peat moss results in substrates with suitable characteristics for the nursery production of high-quality de Pinus durangensis seedlings, while concurrently reducing production costs. A substrate mixture comprising 50 % fresh sawdust, 25 % composted bark, 25 % peat moss, and 9 g∙L-1 of Multicote® controlled-release fertilizer (18-6-12 N-P-K) yielded seedlings exhibiting morphological quality traits in compliance with Appendix C of the Mexican Standard NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2014. Controlled-release fertilizer doses of 9 and 12 g∙L-1 with an eight-month release period enhanced seedling quality most effectively; nevertheless, the 9 g∙L-1 dose represents a more cost-efficient option, also complying with such standard.

References

Aguilera-Rodríguez, M., Aldrete, A., Martínez-Trinidad, T., & Ordáz-Chaparro, V. M. (2016). Producción de Pinus montezumae Lamb. con diferentes sustratos y fertilizantes de liberación controlada. Agrociencia, 50(1), 107-118. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=30243765008Links ]

Aguilera-Rodríguez, M., Aldrete, A., Trejo-Téllez, l. J., & Ordáz-Chaparro, V. M. (2021). Sustratos con aserrín de coníferas y latifoliadas para producir plantas de Pinus patula Schiede ex Schltdl. et Cham. Agrociencia, 55(8), 719-732. https://doi.org/10.47163/agrociencia.v55i8.266 [ Links ]

Aguilera-Rodríguez, M., Aldrete, A., Sánchez-Velázquez, J. R., & Prieto-Ruíz, J. A. (2023). Instalaciones e insumos para la producción. In A. Aldrete, J. R. Sánchez-Velázquez, M. Aguilera-Rodríguez, D. Cibrián-Tovar, & S. E. García-Díaz, Manual de buenas prácticas para el manejo de la salud de planta en viveros forestales (pp. 41-90). Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Estado de México, México. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379911701_Calidad_de_planta_en_viveros_forestalesLinks ]

Ávila-Angulo, M. L., Gómez-Guerrero, A., Aldrete, A., Vargas-Hernández, J. J., López-López, M. A., & Hernández-Ruiz, J. (2020). Does fertilization hardening improve the morphometric and physiological characteristics of Pinus rudis Endl. seedlings?. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 26(1), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2019.04.031 [ Links ]

Buamscha, M. G., Contardi, L. T., Kasten, D. R., Enricci, J. A., Escobar, R. R., Gonda, H. E., Jacobs, D. F., Landis, T. D., Luna, T., Mexal, J. G., & Wilkinson, K. M. (2012). Producción de plantas en viveros forestales. Buenos Aires: CIEFAP. http://ciefap.org.ar/documentos/pub/Produc_plantas_viv.pdfLinks ]

Burney, O., Aldrete, A., Alvarez R, R., Prieto, R. J. A., Sánchez, V. J. R., & Mexal, J. G. (2015). México-Addressing challenges to reforestation. Journal of Forestry, 113, 404-413. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-007 [ Links ]

Castro-Garibay, S. L., Aldrete, A., López-Upton, J., & Ordaz Chaparro, V. M. (2019). Caracterización física y química de sustratos con base en corteza y aserrín de pino. Madera y Bosques, 25(2), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.21829/myb.2019.2521520 [ Links ]

Cervantes-Rodríguez, N., Prieto-Ruíz, J. A., Rosales-Mata, S., & Félix-Herrán, J. A. (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. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-0182018000100017&lng= es&nrm= iso&tlng=esLinks ]

Comisión Nacional Forestal México (CONAFOR) (2021). El sector forestal mexicano en cifras 2020.https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/644967/El_Sector_Forestal_Mexicano_en_Cifras_2020_compressed1_.pdfLinks ]

Comisión Nacional Forestal México (CONAFOR) (2023). Estado que guarda el sector forestal en México 2023. https://www.gob.mx/conafor/documentos/estado-que-guarda-el-sector-forestal-en -mexico-2023Links ]

Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política de Desarrollo Social (CONEVAL) (2018). Fichas de monitoreo y evaluación 2017-2018 de los programas y las acciones federales de desarrollo social. https://www.coneval.org.mx/EvaluacionDS/PP/ CEIPP/IEPSM/Documents/Fichas-Monitoreo-y-Evaluacion-2017-2018.pdfLinks ]

Fathi, A. (2022). El rol del nitrógeno (N) en el crecimiento de las plantas, pigmentos de fotosíntesis y eficiencia del empleo del nitrógeno. Agrisost, 28, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8164584 [ Links ]

Gayosso-Rodríguez, S., Borges-Gómez, L., Villanueva-Couoh, E., Estrada-Botello, M. A., & Garruña-Hernández, R. (2016). Sustratos para producción de flores. Agrociencia, 50, 617-631. https://agrociencia-colpos.org/index.php/agrociencia/article/ view/1237/ 1237.Links ]

González Orozco, M. M., Prieto Ruíz, J. A., Aldrete, A., Hernández Díaz, J. C., Chávez Simental, J. A., & Rodríguez Laguna, R. (2018). Sustratos a base de aserrín crudo con fertilización y la calidad de plantas de Pinus cooperi Blanco en vivero. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales, 9(48), 204-226. https://doi.org/10.29298/rmcf.v8i48.125 [ Links ]

Grossnickle, S. C. (2018). Seedling establishment on a forest restoration site - An ecophysiological perspective. Reforesta, 6, 110-139. https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.6.09.62 [ Links ]

Grossnickle, S. C., & MacDonald, J. E. (2018). Seedling quality: History, application, and plant attributes. Forests, 9(283), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9050283 [ Links ]

Haase, D. L., & Davis, A. S. (2017). Developing and supporting quality nursery facilities and staff are necessary to meet global forest and landscape restoration needs. Reforesta, 4, 69-93. https://doi.org/10.21750/REFOR.4.06.45 [ Links ]

Heras-Marcial, M., Aldrete, A., Gómez-Guerrero, A., & Rodríguez-Trejo, D. A. (2023). Influence of fertilization on survival and growth of Pinus patula Schiede ex Schltdl. & Cham. under nursery and field conditions. Revista Chapingo Serie Ciencias Forestales y del Ambiente, 29(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchscfa.2022.03.019 [ Links ]

Hernández-Velasco, J., Hernández-Díaz, J. C., Vargas-Hernández, J. J., Hipkins, V., Prieto-Ruíz, J. A., Pérez-Luna, A., & Wehenkel, C. (2022). Natural hybridization in seed stands of seven Mexican Pinus species. New Forests, 53, 487-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-021-09868-9 [ Links ]

Hernández-Zarate, L., Aldrete, A., Ordaz-Chaparro, V. M., López-Upton, J., & López-López, M. A. (2014). Crecimiento de Pinus montezumae Lamb. en vivero influenciado por diferentes mezclas de sustratos. Agrociencia, 48(6), 627-637. http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/agro/v48n6/v48n6a5.pdfLinks ]

Landis, T. D., Tinus, R. W., McDonald, S. E., & Barnett, J. P. (1990). Containers and growing media. Vol. 2. The container tree nursery manual. Agric. Handbook. Washington, DC. USA: USDA Forest Service. https://rngr.net/publications/ctnm/volume-2Links ]

Landis, T. D., & Dumroese, R. L. (2009). Using polymer-coated controlled-release fertilizers in the nursery and after outplanting. Forest Nursery Notes, 29(1), 5-12. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2009_landis_t001.pdfLinks ]

Landis, T. D., Dumroese, R. L., & Haase, D. L. (2010). Seedling processing, storage, and outplanting. In T. D. Landis, R. W. Tinus, S. E. McDonald, & J. P. Barnett, The container tree nursery manual (pp. 1-200). USDA Forest Service. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272817540_The_container_tree_nursery_manual_volume_7_seedling_processing_storage_and_outplantingLinks ]

Larriva Coronel, N. (2003). Síntesis de la importancia del potasio en el suelo y plantas. La Granja, 2(1), 23-24. https://revistas.ups.edu.ec/index.php/granja/article/view/2.2003.09Links ]

Madrid-Aispuro, R. E., Prieto-Ruíz, J. A., Aldrete, A., Hernández-Díaz, J. C., Wehenkel, Ch., & Chávez-Simental, J. A. (2021). Crecimiento de Pinus cembroides Zucc. en vivero en diversos sustratos y fertilizantes. Agrociencia, 54(4), 539-554. https://www.agrociencia-colpos.org/index.php/agrociencia/article/view/2051/2005Links ]

Martínez-Casas, R., García-Rodríguez, J. L., Salcido- Ruiz, S., Goche-Télles, J. R., & Prieto-Ruíz, J. A. (2024). Production of Pinus durangensis Mart. under different substrate and mycorrhizal inoculation conditions in nursery. Agrociencia, 58(4), 486-499. https://doi.org/10.47163/agrociencia.v58i4.2960 [ Links ]

Martínez-Nevárez, L. E., Prieto-Ruíz, J. A., Sigala-Rodríguez, J. A., García-Rodríguez, J. L., Martínez-Reyes, M., Carrillo-Parra, A., & Domínguez-Calleros, P. A. (2023). Crecimiento y eficiencia en el uso de nutrientes de plantas de Pinus cooperi C. E. Blanco producidas en vivero con un fertilizante de liberación controlada. Terra Latinoamericana, 41, 1-12. e1707. https://doi.org/10.28940/terra.v41i0.1707 [ Links ]

Mateo Sánchez, J. J., Suarez Islas, A., Capulín Grande, J., Pacheco Trejo, J., González de la Rosa, L., & Reyes Santamaría Ma. I. (2023). Utilización de desperdicios de la industria primaria de la madera para producción de planta en vivero. Boletín de Ciencias Agropecuarias del ICAP, 9, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.29057/icap.v9iEspecial.8977 [ Links ]

Prieto Ruíz, J. A., Aldrete, A., Sánchez V., J. R., & Hernández D., J. C. (2016). Antecedentes sobre la reforestación en México. In J. A. Prieto Ruíz, & J. R. Goche Télles, Las reforestaciones en México: problemática y alternativas de solución (pp. 14-22). Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378742653_Las_reforestaciones_en_Mexico_PROBLEMATICA_Y_ALTERNATIVAS_DE_SOLUCIONLinks ]

Reyes Rodríguez, C. F., Rosas Chavoya, M., López Serrano, P. M., Prieto Ruíz, J. A., Hinojosa Espinoza, F., & Vega Nieva, D. (2024). Análisis de la temperatura superficial en las áreas verdes de la ciudad de Durango, Durango. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Forestales, 15(81), 83-109. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2007-11322024000100083Links ]

Rose, R., Haase, D. L., & Arellano, E. (2004). Fertilizantes de entrega controlada: potencial para mejorar la productividad de la reforestación. Bosque, 25(2), 89-100. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0717-92002004000200009 [ Links ]

Sánchez-Hernández, R. S., Quiñones-Pérez, C. Z., Hernández-Díaz, J. C., Prieto-Ruíz, J. A., & Wehenkel, C. (2022). Field trials to assess the growth, survival, and stomatal densities of five Mexican Pine species and their hybrids under common plantation conditions. Forests, 13(11), 1791. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13111791 [ Links ]

SAS Institute (2009). SAS/STAT® 9.2. User´s Guide. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, EEUU. http://support.sas.com/docu-mentation/cdl/en/statugmcmc/63125/PDF/default/statugmcmc.pdfLinks ]

Secretaría de Economía. (2014). Norma Mexicana NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2014: Certificación de operación de viveros forestales. https://biblioteca.semarnat.gob.mx/janium/Documentos/Ciga/agenda/DOFsr/DO3430.pdfLinks ]

Secretaría de Recursos Naturales y Medio Ambiente (SEMARNAT) (2021). Anuario estadístico de la producción forestal 2018. https://dsiappsdev.semarnat.gob.mx/datos/portal/publicaciones/2021/2018.pdfLinks ]

Taiz, L., & Zeiger, E. (2006). Fisiología vegetal (3.ª ed.). Sunderland, MA, USA: Universidad Jaume. [ Links ]

Villar Salvador, P., Peñuelas Rubira, J. L., & Nicolás Peragón, J. L. (2021). La calidad de los materiales de reproducción. Capítulo 16. In J. Pemán García, R. M. Navarro Cerrillo, M. A. Prada Sáez, & R. Serrada Hierro, Bases técnicas y ecológicas del proyecto de repoblación forestal (pp. 781-822). Madrid, España. https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/desertificacion-restauracion/basestecnicasyecologicasdelproyectoderepoblacionforestal-tomo1_tcm30-534170.pdfLinks ]

Zamunér Filho, A. N., Venturin, N., Pereira, A. V., Carvalho Pereira, E. B., & Grisi Macedo, R. L. (2012). Doses of controlled-release fertilizer for production of rubber tree rootstocks. CERNE, 18(2), 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-77602012000200008 [ Links ]

Received: September 20, 2024; Accepted: October 09, 2025

*Corresponding author: jprieto@ujed.mx; tel.: +52 618 136 1952.

Conflict of interest declaration

The authors declare that they have no economic conflicts of interest or known personal relationships that could have influenced the research presented in this article.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License