Next Article in Journal
Sensitivity of Codispersion to Noise and Error in Ecological and Environmental Data
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Graphene on Bacterial Community Diversity and Soil Environments of Haplic Cambisols in Northeast China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Quantitative Assessment of Surface Runoff and Base Flow Response to Multiple Factors in Pengchongjian Small Watershed
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/f9110678
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Nursery Production of Pinus engelmannii Carr. with Substrates Based on Fresh Sawdust

by
María Mónica González-Orozco
1,
José Ángel Prieto-Ruíz
2,*,
Arnulfo Aldrete
3,
José Ciro Hernández-Díaz
4,
Jorge Armando Chávez-Simental
4 and
Rodrigo Rodríguez-Laguna
5
1
Programa Institucional de Doctorado en Ciencias Agropecuarias y Forestales, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Constitución 404 sur Zona centro, Durango 34000, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Río Papaloapan y Boulevard, Durango S/N Col. Valle del Sur, Durango 34120, Mexico
3
Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Montecillo, Carretera México-Texcoco Km 36.5, Montecillo, Texcoco, Estado de México 56230, Mexico
4
Instituto de Silvicultura e Industria de la Madera, Universidad Juárez del Estado de Durango, Boulevard del Guadiana 501, Ciudad Universitaria, Torre de Investigación, Durango 34120, Mexico
5
Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Universidad Km. 1, Ex Hacienda de Aquetzalpa, Tulancingo, Hidalgo 43600, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2018, 9(11), 678; https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110678
Submission received: 18 September 2018 / Revised: 24 October 2018 / Accepted: 26 October 2018 / Published: 29 October 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Afforestation and Reforestation: Drivers, Dynamics, and Impacts)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Substrate is a factor that significantly influences the quality and production costs of nursery seedlings. The objective of this study was to evaluate combinations of peat moss, composted pine bark, and fresh pine sawdust in order to identify the proportions that favour the quality of Pinus engelmannii Carr. seedlings and minimise the production costs in the nursery. Substrates were formed using mixtures of peat moss (15% to 50%), composted pine bark (15% to 50%) and fresh pine sawdust (20% to 70%), with 2, 4 and 6 g L−1 of controlled release fertilizer (Multicote®, Haifa, Israel). A completely randomised experimental design with a factorial arrangement of 7 × 3 was used. The evaluated factors are root collar diameter, biomass, N-P-K content, and production costs of the substrates which were determined based on the container volume and three commercial quotations. Significant differences were found in root collar diameter and biomass, highlighting the treatments using 50% to 70% sawdust with 6 g L−1 of fertilizer. Assimilated values of N-P-K were acceptable in all treatments with 4 and 6 g L−1 of fertilizer. In the substrates with high percentages of sawdust, seedlings with morphological characteristics and nutritional levels within the values recommended for conifers were produced. In addition, it was possible to reduce the production cost of the substrates by up to 67%.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Mexico has 42% of the world’s total number of Pinus species, of which 47% are found naturally in the state of Durango in northwest Mexico [1]. Within this great diversity, Pinus engelmannii Carr. stands out due to its wide distribution in semi-dry and temperate forests of the Sierra Madre Occidental, which is a system of mountains in the west of Mexico. This species is found on hillsides of between 1900 and 2700 m in altitude, in areas with deep or poor and rocky soils [2]. During its initial growth, P. engelmannii has increases in diameter in relation to height [3]. From an economic point of view, this species is important due to the characteristics of the wood, which makes it widely used in reforestation programmes and commercial forest plantations. Hence, it is the second most produced species in forest nurseries in northern Mexico [4,5,6].
In the nursery, P. engelmannii reproduces by seed, and is generally planted in polystyrene containers or polyethylene tubes, with volumes of 170 to 220 mL, with growth media based on peat moss, pine bark, perlite and vermiculite [5,7]. The seedling quality varies in the different nurseries, hence, viable culture alternatives are sought that allow the production of individuals with suitable characteristics; the characteristics include: a well-developed root system, root collar diameter greater than 5 mm, balance between stem-root, foliage adapted to weather conditions, adequate carbohydrate reserves, and sufficient mineral nutrition [8,9]. These attributes, together with mineral nutrition, influence the growth and adaptation of individuals at the plantation site [10]. Therefore, it is important that fertilization is adequate, as it will promote growth and strengthen tolerance to stress in unfavourable environments [11].
Another important component in the seedling production process in the nursery is the substrate, since the properties of the constituent materials have an effect on seedling growth and future development [12]; and the materials are related to substrate quality [13]. In addition, substrate has a direct relationship with the costs of plant production. Research on the substitution of peat by local substrates, as a culture medium in nurseries, is of great interest [14,15,16,17], since this material has a significant influence on the final cost of seedling production [9]. Importantly, excessive extraction of peat in ecosystems with wetlands, where it is obtained, causes great environmental damage [14,18].
Recent studies have shown that fresh sawdust, as a component of the culture medium, serves as an alternative in the production of forest species, such as Cedrela odorata L. [19], Pinus greggii Engelm. [20], Pinus montezumae Lamb. [21] and Pinus pseudostrobus Lindl., among others [16,22]. However, while these types of studies have evaluated a few Pinus species that are located in the centre of the country, to our knowledge, there have been no such studies of species such as P. engelmannii in northern Mexico.
These considerations support the objective of evaluating combinations of peat moss, composted pine bark, and fresh pine sawdust, in combination with three doses of controlled-release fertilizer, in order to identify the proportions that favour seedling quality and minimise costs of production in the nursery. We propose the hypothesis that substrates which include high proportions of fresh sawdust in combination with controlled release fertilizers, allow the production of P. engelmannii seedlings with adequate morphological characteristics for optimal development, while reducing production costs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

This study was carried out in the “General Francisco Villa” Forest Nursery, which is located at coordinates 23°58′20.38″ N and 104°35′55.83″ W, at an altitude of 1875 m, in the City of Durango, State of Durango, Mexico. The experiment was established in a greenhouse covered with 720 gauge plastic and 50% shade mesh, with overhead, lateral and frontal ventilation, and with an automated irrigation system having micro-sprinklers.

2.2. Establishment of the Experiment

The production seedling cycle was from 15 September 2015 to 20 June 2016 (10 months), and in this period the temperature and relative humidity were monitored (Figure 1). The sowing was performed in polystyrene containers of 77 cavities with 170 mL per cavity, using seeds of P. engelmannii that had been collected in the Coyote de Calaveras, an area which is located in Durango. Before sowing, the seeds received a pre-germinative treatment (soaking in water for 24 h at room temperature) and then they were disinfected for 5 min in a solution of 90% water and 10% chlorine. Finally, 2.5 g L−1 of fungicide (Captán® N-trichloromethylthio-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide, Industrial engineer, Mexico City, Mexico) dissolved in water was applied.

2.3. Substrate and Fertilizer

Seven substrates composed of peat moss, composted bark of Pinus douglasiana Martínez, and fresh pine sawdust were evaluated, three weeks after being obtained from the sawing of logs of Pinus engelmannii Carr., Pinus cooperi Blanco, and Pinus durangensis Martínez (Table 1). Multicote® 18 N - 6 P2O5 + - 12 K2O + 2 Mg + ME fertilizer (Haifa Chemicals Ltd., Hifa, Israel) was used, with 8 to 9 months of nutrient release, in three doses: 2 g L−1 (M2), 4 g L−1 (M4) and 6 g L−1 (M6). The said doses of fertilizer were incorporated into the substrate when preparing the mixture. With the interaction of the seven substrates and the three doses of fertilization, 21 treatments were formed, which were identified using the following keys: S1-M2, S1-M4, S1-M6, S2-M2, S2-M4, S2-M6, S3-M2, S3-M4, S3-M6, S4-M2, S4-M4, S4-M6, S5-M2, S5-M4, S5-M6, S6-M2, S6-M4, S6-M6, S7-M2, S7-M4 and S7-M6, where S refers to the substrate and M refers to the Multicote® fertilizer in its different mixtures and doses, respectively.
In addition to the doses of controlled-release fertilizer, the seedlings in all of the treatments were irrigated using water-soluble fertilizers (Poly-Feed® Foliar, Haifa, Israel) during the production cycle, according to the growth phases of the seedlings. In the first or establishment phase (8%-52%-17%, N-P-K), the dose was from 40 to 70 ppm of nitrogen with a duration of 2.5 months. In the rapid growth phase (20%-9%-20%, N-P-K), the dose was 100 to 200 ppm of nitrogen with a duration of 2.5 months and, in the last or pre-conditioning phase (4%-25%-40%, N-P-K), the dose was 20 to 40 ppm of nitrogen, which lasted for two months. The three doses were applied during irrigation by using an automated system. This regimen of foliar fertilization is the one used in the Francisco Villa Nursery, combined with 3 g L−1 of Multicote®, when it is used as a substrate of 50% moss peat + 50% composted pine bark. In addition, the presence of pests and diseases was prevented with the application of insecticides (LORSBAN®, Tlaxcala, Mexico, CONFIDOR®, Leverkusen, Germany, ENGEO®, Mexico City, Mexico) and fungicides (CAPTAN®, Mexico City, Mexico, TECTO®, Mexico City, Mexico, DEROSAL®, Leverkusen, Germany) every 4 days.

2.4. Experimental Design

A completely randomised experimental design was used with a factorial arrangement of 7 × 3, with seven substrates and three doses of fertilization. The experimental unit consisted of 12 seedlings with four replications per treatment, with a total of 1008 seedlings being evaluated in the trial.

2.5. Variables Evaluated

2.5.1. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Substrate Mixtures

The physical characteristics that were determined for the substrates were: aeration porosity (%), humidity retention porosity (%), and total porosity (%), using the method described by Landis [23], and the chemical properties were: pH and electrical conductivity (dS m−1), which were based on NOM-021-RECNAT-2000. These studies were carried out at the beginning of production, in the Environmental Sciences Laboratory, of the Integral Rural Centre for Interdisciplinary Research for Integral Rural Development (CIIDIR is the Spanish-language acronym), which is a Durango-based unit of the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN is the Spanish-language acronym).

2.5.2. Morphological Variables

When the seedlings were ten months of age, the root collar diameter (mm) was measured with a digital vernier caliper, together with the dry aerial biomass, dry root biomass, and dry total biomass (g). To determine the biomass, the plants were dehydrated in a drying oven at 70 °C for 72 h, until reaching a constant weight. Then, the samples were weighed on an Ohaus® (Ohaus of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico) analytical balance with an accuracy of 0.0001 g.

2.5.3. Concentrations of Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K)

Representative samples of dry foliage were integrated to determine the content of N, P and K; these consisted of needles from the middle part of each seedling, up to 5 g per treatment, with three repetitions. N content was determined by using the Kjeldahl method [24]. P content was determined by complex determination of yellow colour production of vanadomolybdate reagent in reaction with phosphates, and K content was determined by using atomic emission (the samples were digested using 60% nitric acid and 40% perchloric acid) [25]. With the obtaining of the concentration of each element, vector nomograms were constructed, based on the weight of 100 needles of each treatment [26].

2.5.4. Cost of the Substrate

The cost of the substrate was determined based on the volume of the cavity (170 mL) of the container, and was valued in US dollars based on three commercial quotations (Date: 15 March 2018).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The data of the morphological variables were evaluated by the non-parametric statistical test of Kruskal-Wallis, due to the non-compliance of the normality assumptions; therefore, the Bonferroni-Dunn means separation test (p ≤ 0.05) was used. The data were analyzed using the R statistical software version 3.2.3, Vienna, Austria [27].

3. Results

3.1. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Substrate Mixtures

Aeration porosity ranged from 23.6% in S6 to 29.2% in S1; humidity retention porosity varied from 33.6% in S1 to 49.4% in S7; while total porosity presented a range of 62.8% in S1 to 76.3% in S7; in the latter two variables, the porosity increased as the proportion of sawdust increased. Regarding the chemical characteristics of the substrate mixtures, the pH and electrical conductivity presented slightly higher values in the substrates which included sawdust, in comparison with the control substrate (S1) (Table 2).

3.2. Morphological Variables

3.2.1. Root Collar Diameter

The root collar diameter was not influenced significantly by the substrate or fertilizer doses. The interaction of the factors presented significant differences, with the highest values being related to the seedlings that were produced in the treatments S5-M2 (7.41 mm) and S4-M4 (7.35 mm) (Table 3, Figure 2).

3.2.2. Dry Aerial Biomass

The dry aerial biomass did not present significant differences at the substrate level, while at the fertilizer level it was significantly higher at the 6 g L−1 dose with 4.74 g. The interaction of the factors showed significant differences, highlighting the S7-M6 treatment (5.40 g) (Table 3, Figure 2).

3.2.3. Dry Root Biomass

The dry root biomass showed significant differences at the substrate level, in which the substrate with the highest proportion of sawdust S7 (1.35 g) was notable, while the effect of the fertilising factor was non-significant. The interaction of the factors presented highly significant differences, and the treatment with the highest value was S7-M6 (1.56 g) (Table 3, Figure 2).

3.2.4. Dry Total Biomass

The dry total biomass did not show significant differences in its influence over the substrate, while the fertilizer significantly influenced with the dose of 6 g L−1 with 5.96 g in the upper level. The substrate and fertilizer interaction was significant, within which the treatment S7-M6 (6.96 g) stood out. In all the morphological variables that were evaluated, the treatments that included sawdust were superior to the control, whereas the control only included peat moss and composted pine bark (Table 3, Figure 2).

3.3. Nutrimental Analysis of the Foliage

In the concentrations of N, P and K, no significant differences were found between treatments (Table 4). Despite this, relationship of concentrations and needles weight generated variable responses in the vector nomograms of each element, based on the substrates and doses evaluated.

3.3.1. Nitrogen (N)

The nomogram of N with 2 g L−1 Multicote®, indicates that the treatments S2-M2, S3-M2, S4-M2, and S5-M2 generated an increase in the biomass of needles, but had a lower concentration of the element with respect to S1-M2 (substrate without sawdust). Meanwhile, the treatments S6-M2 and S7-M2 presented an amount of biomass of needles that was similar to S1-M2, but with a lower concentration of N (Figure 3a).
On the other hand, according to the nomogram where 4 g L−1 of Multicote® was added, the S3-M4 treatment showed a greater increase in the biomass of needles in relation to S1-M4, but had a slight decrease in N; treatments S4-M4, S5-M4, S6-M4 and S7-M4 showed a smaller increase in the biomass of needles and lower concentration of N than S1-M4; and finally, the S2-M4 treatment showed a lower increase in biomass of needles, and the same concentration of N (Figure 3b).
In the nomogram with 6 g L−1 of Multicote®, it can be observed that the treatments S3-M6 and S7-M6 present a biomass of needles similar to S1-M6, but with a lower concentration of N. On the other hand, the treatments S4-M6 and S6-M6 show a lower biomass of needles and a lower concentration of N. Finally, treatments S2-M6 and S5-M6 present a lower biomass of needles and a similar concentration of N, compared to S1-M6 (Figure 3c).

3.3.2. Phosphorus (P)

The nomogram with the dose of 2 g L−1 Multicote®, shows that the treatments S2-M2 and S4-M2 generated a greater increase in the biomass of needles and similar concentration, with respect to the S1-M2. On the other hand, treatments S3-M2 and S5-M2 show a higher biomass of needles, but with a lower concentration of P, while treatments S6-M2 and S7-M2 present a lower biomass of needles and a lower concentration of P (Figure 4a).
On the other hand, in the nomogram with the addition of 4 g L−1 of Multicote®, only S3-M4 presents a biomass in needles that is similar to S1-M4, but with a lower concentration of P; treatments S5-M4, S6-M4 and S7-M4 show a lower increase in the biomass of needles and a lower concentration than S1-M4; finally, in the treatments S2-M4 and S4-M4 there was a smaller increase in biomass of needles, and a slight increase in the concentration of P (Figure 4b).
In the nomogram with 6 g L−1 of Multicote®, treatment S3-M6 has generated the same amount of biomass of needles and concentration of P as SI-M6, while S7-M6 shows the same biomass of needles but lower concentration of P; finally, the treatments S2-M6, S4-M6, S5-M6 and S6-M6 have a lower biomass of needles and a lower concentration of P, all in comparison to S1-M6 (Figure 4c).

3.3.3. Potassium (K)

The nomogram with 2 g L−1 of Multicote®, shows that the treatment S4-M2 generated a greater increase in the biomass of needles and a higher concentration of K with respect to the S1-M2. On the other hand, the treatments S2-M2, S3-M2 and S5-M2 achieved a greater biomass of needles than S1-M2, but with a lower concentration of K; while the treatments S6-M2 and S7-M2 had a lower biomass of needles and lower concentration of K (Figure 5a).
On the other hand, in the nomogram with the addition of 4 g L−1 of Multicote®, only the S3-M4 attained a greater increase of biomass in needles in relation to S1-M4, but with a lower concentration of K; treatments S2-M4, S5-M4 and S6-M4 show a lower increase in the biomass of needles and a lower concentration of K than S1-M4. Finally, treatments S4-M4 and S7-M4 show a lower increase in biomass of needles, but a higher concentration of K (Figure 5b).
In the nomogram with 6 g L−1 Multicote®, the treatments S3-M6 and S7-M6 have practically the same amount of biomass and concentration as the S1-M6 treatment, while the treatments S4-M6 and S6-M6 express a lower biomass of needles but with higher concentrations of K; the S5-M6 treatment has a lower biomass of needles and an equal concentration of K. Finally, the S2-M6 treatment presents a lower biomass of needles and a lower concentration of K (Figure 5c).

3.4. Substrate Cost

The cost per litre of substrate was valued in dollars as follows: S1 = 3.49, S2 = 2.82, S3 = 2.49, S4 = 2.15, S5 = 1.82, S6 = 1.48 and S7 = 1.15 ($). Based on the previous quotations, the substrates that contain sawdust are between 23% and 67% more economical, in relation to the substrate that contains only peat moss and composted pine bark. With the costs obtained from the substrate, an extrapolation was carried out in a production of 100,000 plants (Figure 6), where the investment in the seedling production by substrates appreciates when including the fresh sawdust.

4. Discussion

4.1. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Substrate Mixtures

In general, the substrates that were evaluated in the present study had percentages of moisture retention within the recommended values, which were increasing in the mixtures when increasing the percentage of sawdust, due to the size of the fine particles of that sawdust. As a consequence, aeration porosities were lower in the mixtures with higher percentage of sawdust, without presenting root rot problems due to excess moisture, since the size and composition of the pine bark particles provide a greater flow of air, and greater water filtration [29], although it is inevitable that the porosity decreases with time due to the compaction and settlement of the substrate by way of constant humidity changes [30].
The three porosities that were evaluated are within the recommended ranges for producing coniferous seedlings (Table 1) [23,28]. This indicates that the evaluated substrates retain sufficient moisture, due to the degree of porosity that was determined in this study, which generated a broad root system that favoured the growth of the seedlings, and that root system is expected to help withstand severe growing conditions in the field [15]. Other works in the body of literature agree on the feasibility of including fresh sawdust in substrates when producing Pinus spp., and on which substrates can be formulated regarding their appropriate physical and chemical characteristics [16,17,21].
Because these properties can change according to time and source, they must always be tested for each condition [9], since the physical and chemical properties of organic waste can change according to type and origin [31]. In this case, the materials used in this study did not cause problems of diseases and pests, nor did they cause toxicity in the seedlings when using sawdust without composting.
The pH and electrical conductivity are also important properties, as they influence the availability of nutrients in growth media [32]. On the one hand, the pH presented values with a strong acidity in all of the treatments, but the S6 substrate (pH of 4.82) with sawdust presented a value that was closer to the recommended value (pH of 5). However, pH values increase during the production process, due to watering. Substrates including composted pine bark and sawdust have been found with pH values of 4.3 to 4.7 [21], that is, pH values that are very close to those reported in the present study. In general, pH values within the range of 4.0 to 6.0 are typical in substrates with pine bark and moss in the production of various species under nursery conditions [33].
On the other hand, the values that were reached in the electrical conductivity are also low in comparison with the recommended values; however, these values must not exceed 3.5 dS m−1, since they could cause salinity problems [28].

4.2. Morphological Variables

4.2.1. Root Collar Diameter

The most widely used morphological attribute with which to estimate the quality of the seedlings is root collar diameter [8,11,34]. Because the survival and growth of plants in the field is associated with the root system of the seedling, the diameter has been defined as an important indicator [35,36]. In this sense, treatments with S4-M4 (30% peat + 30% bark + 40% sawdust + 4 g L−1 of Multicote®) and S5-M2 (25% peat + 25% bark + 50% sawdust + 2 g L−1 of Multicote®) stood out from the rest with respect to this variable; however, the criteria established by the NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2016 standard to produce P. engelmannii, establishes a root collar diameter of ≥ 5 mm [37]; that is, all treatments exceed this parameter.
For this variable, in Pinus montezumae Lamb. (species of similar growth), average values of 7.26 mm have been reported, and they were produced in substrate with composted pine sawdust (70%) + composted pine bark (15%) + vermiculite (15%) in combination with 4, 6 and 8 g L−1 of Multicote® [17]. Also, in the same species, values of 9.7 to 11.4 mm are reported in substrates with different proportions of fresh pine sawdust (20% to 80%) in combination with peat moss (10% to 80%), composted pine bark (10%), perlite (10%), and vermiculite (10%) [21]. The information in the above indicates that the inclusion of sawdust in high proportions does promote suitable conditions for the seedlings to reach the appropriate diameter.

4.2.2. Dry Biomass (Aerial, Root, and Total)

In general, dry biomass was favoured in the treatments with the highest proportion of sawdust (40% to 70%), with addition of 4 and 6 g L−1 of Multicote®; that is, with values higher than those found in the treatments that include the control substrate (S1-M2, S1-M4, and S1-M6). This can be attributed to the fact that the substrates with sawdust retained more moisture, a condition that could increase the availability of nutrients in these seedlings. This indicates that the fertilization scheme that was used (controlled-release fertilization plus foliar fertilization) was sufficient to prevent competition between the microorganisms and the seedlings, based on their dry biomass and diameter. Aguilera-Rodríguez et al. [17] reported similar values in aerial biomass (3.28–4.41), root biomass (0.91–1.11) and total biomass (4.19–5.51), when evaluating substrates with composted pine sawdust (70%) + composted pine bark (15%) + vermiculite (15%) in combination with 4, 6 and 8 g L−1 of Multicote® in the production of P. montezumae.
In general, the root system of the seedlings produced in the different treatments, presented good physiognomy based on the points of growth observed in the root, possibly due to the ratio of the dry root biomass and the growth potential [8]. These results suggest a good performance of these seedlings in the field, since at the beginning of their establishment they will depend on the root system that was created in nursery [38], because the growth of the root is a determining factor in ensuring the development and establishment of the plantation [8].

4.3. Nutrimental Analysis of the Foliage

When observing the nomograms of N, P and K, it is evident that with the dose of 2 g L−1 of Multicote® an increase of biomass of needles is generated in most of the treatments that include fresh pine sawdust, but with effects of dilution of the elements, with reference to the treatment that only includes peat moss and composted bark (S1-M2). On the other hand, in the doses of 4 and 6 g L−1 of Multicote®, it can be seen that the treatments containing sawdust are below their referents (S1-M4 and S1-M6) for the three elements. This decrease in the concentration of the elements may be due to the greater growth in aerial biomass, root biomass, and total biomass in plants grown on substrates that include sawdust, derived from their use in the production of photosynthates.
On the other hand, these concentrations of N, P and K are within the recommended levels of sufficiency for conifers (N 1.40%–2.20%, P 0.20%–0.40%, and K 0.40%–1.50%, respectively) [39], in 17 treatments, and only in the case of N did the treatments S2-M2, S4-M2, S6-M2 and S7-M2 not reach the minimum value. However, in the ranges recommended for the species (N 1.1%–3.5%, P 0.1%–0.6% and K 0.2%–2.5%) [7], all treatments presented an acceptable value.
In P. montezumae produced in composite substrate with 70% compost pine sawdust + 15% compost pine bark + 15% vermiculite, with added high fertilization doses (8 g L–1 of Multicote® and 8 g L−1 of Osmocote Plus®), Aguilera-Rodríguez et al. [17] reported slightly lower values (0.79% to 1.33% in N, 0.06% to 1.16% in P, and 0.12% to 0.31% in K) compared to the values in the present study, despite using composted sawdust. It is possible that this was due to the fact that the controlled release fertilizers were not accompanied by foliar fertilization, or it is possible that this was because they had already been assimilated by the seedlings.

4.4. Costs

In this study, sawdust substrates were up to 67% cheaper than those substrates that include peat moss and bark, due to the low cost of sawdust, being that it is a locally-produced material. Otherwise, peat increases its cost due to increases in fuel consumption related to logistics, since the peat has to be imported from other countries, mainly from the U.S.A., hence it is important to replace or gradually reduce its use [40,41].
The main objective of the seedlings producers is to minimise the cost and to improve the quality of the seedlings [42]. Therefore, it is recommended that the managers of the forest nurseries use local materials in their culture media [41,43,44]. In addition, special attention should be paid to the use of simple and environmentally acceptable materials that are easily accessible to nursery producers [40,45]. Composted materials have disadvantages, because developing countries are not necessarily equipped with the appropriate infrastructure to treat and compost solid waste, which generates pollutants that negatively affect human health and that contaminate the water table [40]. For this reason, the inclusion of high proportions of fresh pine sawdust turns out to be a viable option and with favourable results in the morphology of P. engelmannii, likewise presenting no toxic waste or health risks during its production in the nursery.

5. Conclusions

The species P. engelmannii can be produced in a nursery in substrates with high proportions of fresh sawdust (up to 70%), with nutrient reserves (N, P and K) within the ranges recommended for the species. Based on the price of peat moss, composted bark and fresh sawdust, substrates with these materials can be 23% to 67% cheaper than the control substrate, depending on the proportion of sawdust in the mix. Finally, it is recommended to carry out tests to corroborate whether, after planting in the field, the same tendency of the best substrates and fertilization doses found in the nursery is maintained.

Author Contributions

M.M.G.O. was involved in the establishment of the experiment, collection, capture and statistical analysis of the data and in the writing of the manuscript; J.Á.P.R. was involved in the design and establishment of the experiment and a review of the manuscript; A.A. was involved in the counselling regarding the treatments to be evaluated and also in a review of the manuscript; J.C.H.D. was involved in the counselling on the results of the analysis of costs and also in a review of the manuscript; J.A.C.S. was involved in a review of the manuscript; R.R.L. was involved in a review of the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Roberto Trujillo and Roberto Trujillo Ayala, who are managers of the “General Francisco Villa” Forest Nursery, for the facilities provided there for carrying out the experiments related to this study. Appreciation goes to Manuel Aguilera Rodríguez for the advice in the establishment of the experiment. Finally, thanks go to CONACyT, for the scholarship granted to the first author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sánchez-González, A. Diversity and distribution of Mexican pines, an overview. Madera Bosques 2008, 14, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. González-Elizondo, M.S.; González-Elizondo, M.; Tena-Flores, J.A.; Ruacho-González, L.; López-Enríquez, I.L. Vegetación de la Sierra Madre Occidental, México: Una síntesis. Acta Bot. Mex. 2012, 351–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. García, A.A.; González, E.M.S. Pináceas de Durango; Instituto de Ecología, Comisión Nacional Forestal, Ed.; Instituto de Ecología A.C. y Comisión Nacional Forestal: León, Guanajuato, Mexico, 2003; ISBN 968-6021-18-3. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ávila-Flores, I.J.; Hernández-Díaz, J.C.; González-Elizondo, M.S.; Prieto-Ruíz, J.Á.; Wehenkel, C. Degree of hybridization in seed stands of Pinus engelmannii Carr. in the Sierra Madre Occidental, Durango, Mexico. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0152651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ávila-Flores, I.J.; Prieto-Ruíz, J.A.; Hernández-Díaz, J.C.; Wehenkel, C.A.; Corral-Rivas, J.J. Preconditioning Pinus engelmannii Carr. seedlings by irrigation deficit in nursery. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Cienc. For. y del Ambient. 2014, 20, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Prieto, R.J.A.; Cornejo, O.E.H.; Domínguez, C.P.A.; de J. Návar, C.J.; Marmolejo, M.J.G.; Jiménez, P.J. Water stress in Pinus engelmannii Carr., under nursery conditions. Investig. Agrar. Sist. Recur. 2004, 13, 443–451. [Google Scholar]
  7. Prieto, R.J.Á; Sáenz, R.T.J. Indicadores de calidad de planta en viveros forestales de la Sierra Madre Occidental, Primera ed.; Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Campo Experimental Uruapan. del G.: Durango, Mexico, 2011; ISBN 978-607-425-716-8. [Google Scholar]
  8. Grossnickle, S.C.; MacDonald, J.E. Why seedlings grow: Influence of plant attributes. New For. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mañas, P.; Castro, E.; de Las Heras, J. Quality of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.) seedlings using waste materials as nursery growing media. New For. 2009, 37, 295–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Viera, M.; Ruíz Fernández, F.; Rodríguez-Soalleiro, R. Nutritional prescriptions for Eucalyptus plantations: Lessons learned from Spain. Forests 2016, 7, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Merine, A.K.; Rodríguez-García, E.; Alía, R.; Pando, V.; Bravo, F. Effects of water stress and substrate fertility on the early growth of Acacia senegal and Acacia seyal from Ethiopian Savanna woodlands. Trees 2015, 29, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mondragón-Valero, A.; Lopéz-Cortés, I.; Salazar, D.M.; de Córdova, P.F. Physical mechanisms produced in the development of nursery almond trees (Prunus dulcis Miller) as a response to the plant adaptation to different substrates. Rhizosphere 2017, 3, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dumroese, R.K.; Sung, S.J.S.; Pinto, J.R.; Ross-Davis, A.; Scott, D.A. Morphology, gas exchange, and chlorophyll content of longleaf pine seedlings in response to rooting volume, copper root pruning, and nitrogen supply in a container nursery. New For. 2013, 44, 881–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Aleandri, M.P.; Chilosi, G.; Muganu, M.; Vettraino, A.; Marinari, S.; Paolocci, M.; Luccioli, E.; Vannini, A. On farm production of compost from nursery green residues and its use to reduce peat for the production of olive pot plants. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 193, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wisdom, B.; Nyembezi, M.; Agathar, K. Effect of different vermiculite and pine bark media substrates mixtures on physical properties and spiral rooting of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) in float tray system. Rhizosphere 2017, 3, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Aguilera, R.M.; Aldrete, A.; Martínez, T.T.; Ordaz, C.V.M. Production of Pinus pseudostrobus Lindl. with sawdust substrates and controlled release fertilizers. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2016, 7, 7–19. [Google Scholar]
  17. Aguilera-Rodríguez, M.; Aldrete, A.; Martínez-Trinidad, T.; Ordáz-Chaparro, V.M. Production of Pinus montezumae Lamb. with different substrates and controlled release fertilizers. Agrociencia 2016, 50, 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  18. Mañas, P.; Castro, E.; Vila, P.; de las Heras, J. Use of waste materials as nursery growing media for Pinus halepensis production. Eur. J. For. Res. 2010, 129, 521–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mateo-Sánchez, J.J.; Bonifacio-Vázquez, R.; Pérez-Ríos, S.R.; Mohedano-Caballero, L.; Capulín-Grande, J. Cedrela odorata L. production in a raw sawdust substrate in technician system at Tecpan de Galeana, Guerrero, México. Ra Ximhai 2011, 7, 123–132. [Google Scholar]
  20. Maldonado-Benitez, K.R.; Aldrete, A.; López-Upton, J.; Vaquera-Huerta, H.; Cetina-Alcalá, V.M. Nursery production of Pinus greggii Engelm. in mixtures of substrate with hydrogel and irrigation levels. Agrociencia 2011, 45, 389–398. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hernandez-Zarate, L.; Aldrete, A.; Ordaz-Chaparro, V.M.; López-Upton, J.; López-López, M.Á. Nursery growth of Pinus montezumae Lamb. influenced by different substrate mixtures. Agrociencia 2014, 48, 627–637. [Google Scholar]
  22. Reyes-Reyes, J.; Aldrete, A.; Cetina-Alcalá, V.M.; López-Upton, J. Seedlings production of Pinus pseudostrobus var. Apulcensis in substrates based on sawdust. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Cienc. For. Ambient. 2005, 11, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
  23. Landis, T.D. Containers: Types and Functions. In The Container Tree Nursery Manual, Volume 2; Landis, T.D., Tinus, R.W., McDonald, S.E., Barnett, J.P., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1990; Volume 2, pp. 41–89. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kjeldahl, J. Neue methode zur bestimmung des stickstoffs in organischen körpern. [New method for the determination of nitrogen in organic substances.]. Z. Anal. Chem. 1883, 22, 366–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mckean, S.J. Manual de Análisis de Suelos Y Tejido Vegetal (Soils and Vegetal Tissue Analysis Manual); Laboratorio de Servicios Analíticos. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT): Cali, Colombia, 1993; p. 103. [Google Scholar]
  26. Timmer, V. Interpretation of seedling analysis and visual symptoms. In Mineral Nutrition of Conifer Seedlings; van den Driessche, R., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1991; pp. 113–134. [Google Scholar]
  27. R Core Team R: A Language and Environment For Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed on 2 July 2018).
  28. Mathers, H.M.; Lowe, S.B.; Scagel, C.; Struve, D.K.; Case, L.T. Abiotic factors influencing root growth of woody nursery plants in containers. Hort. Technol. 2007, 17, 151–162. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cruz-Crespo, E.; Can-Chulim, A.; Sandoval-Villa, M.; Bugarín-Montoya, R.; Robles-Bermúdez, A.; Juárez-López, P. Substrates in horticulture. Rev. Biol. Cienc. 2013, 2, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  30. Bakry, M.; Lamhamedi, M.S.; Caron, J.; Bernier, P.Y.; El Abidine, A.Z.; Stowe, D.C.; Margolis, H.A. Changes in the physical properties of two Acacia compost-based growing media and their effects on carob (Ceratonia siliqua L.) seedling development. New For. 2013, 44, 827–847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ostos, J.C.; López-Garrido, R.; Murillo, J.M.; López, R. Substitution of peat for municipal solid waste- and sewage sludge-based composts in nursery growing media: Effects on growth and nutrition of the native shrub Pistacia lentiscus L. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 1793–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Manh, V.H.; Wang, C.H. Vermicompost as an important component in substrate: Effects on seedling quality and growth of muskmelon (Cucumis Melo L.). Procedia APCBEE 2014, 8, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Altland, J.E.; Locke, J.C.; Krause, C.R. Influence of pine bark particle size and pH on cation exchange capacity. Hort. Technol. 2014, 24, 554–559. [Google Scholar]
  34. Luis, V.C.; Puértolas, J.; Climent, J.; Peters, J.; González-Rodríguez, Á.M.; Morales, D.; Jiménez, M.S. Nursery fertilization enhances survival and physiological status in Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) seedlings planted in a semiarid environment. Eur. J. For. Res. 2009, 128, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Thompson, B.E. Seedling morphological evaluation—What you can tell by looking. In Proceedings: Evaluating Seedling Quality: Principles, Procedures, and Predictive Abilities of Major Tests; Durges, M.L., Ed.; Forest Research Laboratory, Oregon State University: Corvallis, OR, USA, 1985; pp. 59–71. ISBN 0874370000. [Google Scholar]
  36. Batziou, M.; Milios, E.; Kitikidou, K. Is diameter at the base of the root collar a key characteristic of seedling sprouts in a Quercus pubescens–Quercus frainetto grazed forest in north-eastern Greece? A morphological analysis. New For. 2017, 48, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Secretaría de Economía NMX-AA-170-SCFI-2016. Certificación de la Operación de Viveros Forestales. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Available online: http://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5464460&fecha=07/12/2016 (accessed on 7 December 2016).
  38. Grossnickle, S.C. Importance of root growth in overcoming planting stress. New For. 2005, 30, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Landis, T.D. Mineral nutrients and fertilization. In The Container Tree Nursery Manual, Volume 4.; Landis, T.D., Tinus, R.W., McDonald, S.E., Barnett, J.P., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1989; pp. 1–67. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bakry, M.; Lamhamedi, M.S.; Caron, J.; Margolis, H.; El Abidine, A.Z.; Bellaka, M.; Stowe, D.C. Are composts from shredded leafy branches of fast-growing forest species suitable as nursery growing media in arid regions? New For. 2012, 43, 267–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Tian, N.; Fang, S.; Yang, W.; Shang, X.; Fu, X. Influence of container type and growth medium on seedling growth and root morphology of Cyclocarya paliurus during nursery culture. Forests 2017, 8, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bashir, A.; Qaisar, K.N.; Khan, M.A.; Majeed, M. Benefit-cost analysis of raising Pinus wallichiana seedlings in different capacities/sizes of root trainers in the nursery. For. Stud. China 2009, 11, 118–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Akpo, E.; Stomph, T.J.; Kossou, D.K.; Omore, A.O.; Struik, P.C. Effects of nursery management practices on morphological quality attributes of tree seedlings at planting: The case of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). For. Ecol. Manag. 2014, 324, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Heiskanen, J. Effects of compost additive in sphagnum peat growing medium on Norway spruce container seedlings. New For. 2013, 44, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Reyes, R.J.; Pimienta de la Torre, D.d.J.; Morales, R.J.A.; Pérez, F.M.A.; Figueroa, P.E. Plant quality of Gmelina arborea Roxb. produced with different substrate mixtures at the nursery. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2018, 9, 111–130. [Google Scholar]
Forests 09 00678 g001 550
Figure 1. Temperature (a) and relative humidity (b) recorded during the production of Pinus engelmannii from September 2015 to June 2016.
Figure 1. Temperature (a) and relative humidity (b) recorded during the production of Pinus engelmannii from September 2015 to June 2016.
Forests 09 00678 g001
Forests 09 00678 g002 550
Figure 2. Variables evaluated in Pinus engelmannii: Root collar diameter (a); dry aerial biomass (b); dry root biomass (c) and dry total biomass (d). Differences between letters indicate significant differences between treatments (Bonferroni, α = 0.05).
Figure 2. Variables evaluated in Pinus engelmannii: Root collar diameter (a); dry aerial biomass (b); dry root biomass (c) and dry total biomass (d). Differences between letters indicate significant differences between treatments (Bonferroni, α = 0.05).
Forests 09 00678 g002
Forests 09 00678 g003 550
Figure 3. Nomograms of nitrogen (N) concentration vectors in the foliage of Pinus engelmannii, produced on seven substrates with the addition of three fertilization doses: (a) 2 g L−1 Multicote®; (b) 4 g L−1 Multicote® and (c) 6 g L−1 Multicote®.
Figure 3. Nomograms of nitrogen (N) concentration vectors in the foliage of Pinus engelmannii, produced on seven substrates with the addition of three fertilization doses: (a) 2 g L−1 Multicote®; (b) 4 g L−1 Multicote® and (c) 6 g L−1 Multicote®.
Forests 09 00678 g003
Forests 09 00678 g004 550
Figure 4. Vector nomograms of the concentration of phosphorus (P) in the foliage of Pinus engelmannii, produced in seven substrates with the addition of three doses of fertilization: (a) 2 g L−1 Multicote®; (b) 4 g L−1 Multicote® and (c) 6 g L−1 Multicote®.
Figure 4. Vector nomograms of the concentration of phosphorus (P) in the foliage of Pinus engelmannii, produced in seven substrates with the addition of three doses of fertilization: (a) 2 g L−1 Multicote®; (b) 4 g L−1 Multicote® and (c) 6 g L−1 Multicote®.
Forests 09 00678 g004
Forests 09 00678 g005 550
Figure 5. Vector nomograms of the potassium concentration (K) in the foliage of Pinus engelmannii, produced in seven substrates with the addition of three doses of fertilization; (a) 2 g L−1 Multicote®; (b) 4 g L−1 Multicote® and (c) 6 g L−1 Multicote®.
Figure 5. Vector nomograms of the potassium concentration (K) in the foliage of Pinus engelmannii, produced in seven substrates with the addition of three doses of fertilization; (a) 2 g L−1 Multicote®; (b) 4 g L−1 Multicote® and (c) 6 g L−1 Multicote®.
Forests 09 00678 g005
Forests 09 00678 g006 550
Figure 6. Projected substrate cost in a production of 100,000 seedlings of Pinus engelmannii, produced in polystyrene containers with 77 cavities of 170 mL.
Figure 6. Projected substrate cost in a production of 100,000 seedlings of Pinus engelmannii, produced in polystyrene containers with 77 cavities of 170 mL.
Forests 09 00678 g006
Table
Table 1. Substrates evaluated in the production of Pinus engelmannii seedlings in the nursery, during the crop cycle of September 2015 to June 2016.
Table 1. Substrates evaluated in the production of Pinus engelmannii seedlings in the nursery, during the crop cycle of September 2015 to June 2016.
CodeSubstrate
S1 (Control)50% Peat moss + 50% Composted pine bark
S240% Peat moss + 40% Composted pine bark + 20% Fresh pine sawdust
S335% Peat moss + 35% Composted pine bark + 30% Fresh pine sawdust
S430% Peat moss + 30% Composted pine bark + 40% Fresh pine sawdust
S525% Peat moss + 25% Composted pine bark + 50% Fresh pine sawdust
S620% Peat moss + 20% Composted pine bark + 60% Fresh pine sawdust
S715% Peat moss + 15% Composted pine bark + 70% Fresh pine sawdust
Table
Table 2. Physical and chemical properties of the substrates evaluated in the production of Pinus engelmannii.
Table 2. Physical and chemical properties of the substrates evaluated in the production of Pinus engelmannii.
SubstratePhysical (%)Chemical
Aeration PorosityHumidity Retention PorosityTotal PorositypHElectrical Conductivity (dS m−1)
S129.233.662.84.070.06
S228.139.267.34.470.08
S325.541.366.84.540.09
S426.440.667.04.650.09
S525.639.865.44.680.09
S623.646.169.74.820.07
S726.949.476.34.740.08
RV25 to 3525 to 5560 to 805 to 6.5<1.0
S1: 50% peat moss + 50% composted pine bark, S2: 40% peat moss + 40% composted pine bark + 20% fresh pine sawdust, S3: 35% peat moss + 35% composted pine bark + 30% fresh pine sawdust, S4: 30% peat moss + 30% composted pine bark + 40% fresh pine sawdust, S5: 25% peat moss + 25% composted pine bark + 50% fresh pine sawdust, S6: 20% peat moss + 20% composted pine bark + 60% fresh pine sawdust, S7: 15% peat moss + 15% composted pine bark + 70% fresh pine sawdust. RV: Recommended values [23,28].
Table
Table 3. Significance values (p value) based on the response of the substrate, the fertilizer and its interaction, in the variables evaluated in Pinus engelmannii, with the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test.
Table 3. Significance values (p value) based on the response of the substrate, the fertilizer and its interaction, in the variables evaluated in Pinus engelmannii, with the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test.
Variable SubstrateFertilizerSubstrate × Fertilizer
Root collar diameter0.3276 ns0.3506 ns<0.0001 ***
Dry aerial biomass0.6821 ns<.0010 **0.0010 **
Dry root biomass0.0223 *0.4116 ns<0.0010 **
Dry total biomass0.7577 ns0.0057 **0.0060 **
Significant differences are denoted by: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, and ns: non-significant.
Table
Table 4. Means of N, P and K concentrations in foliage of Pinus engelmannii.
Table 4. Means of N, P and K concentrations in foliage of Pinus engelmannii.
Treatment N (%)P (%)K (%)
S1-M21.6 ± 0.010.31 ± 0.011.3 ± 0.16
S1-M41.7 ± 0.150.30 ± 0.021.2 ± 0.02
S1-M61.7 ± 0.030.31 ± 0.011.2 ± 0.01
S2-M21.3 ± 0.170.31 ± 0.031.2 ± 0.08
S2-M41.7 ± 0.110.31 ± 0.001.1 ± 0.08
S2-M61.7 ± 0.020.30 ± 0.011.2 ± 0.11
S3-M21.4 ± 0.040.27 ± 0.001.2 ± 0.12
S3-M41.6 ± 0.100.29 ± 0.031.1 ± 0.10
S3-M61.5 ± 0.200.31 ± 0.011.2 ± 0.14
S4-M21.3 ± 0.120.30 ± 0.031.5 ± 0.14
S4-M41.5 ± 0.170.31 ± 0.001.2 ± 0.14
S4-M61.6 ± 0.080.29 ± 0.011.4 ± 0.16
S5-M21.4 ± 0.050.26 ± 0.021.1 ± 0.01
S5-M41.6 ± 0.040.29 ± 0.011.1 ± 0.10
S5-M61.7 ± 0.160.29 ± 0.031.2 ± 0.18
S6-M21.3 ± 0.010.27 ± 0.021.3 ± 0.05
S6-M41.4 ± 0.070.29 ± 0.011.1 ± 0.08
S6-M61.5 ± 0.140.28 ± 0.021.3 ± 0.06
S7-M21.3 ± 0.050.28 ± 0.011.2 ± 0.04
S7-M41.4 ± 0.070.28 ± 0.011.2 ± 0.06
S7-M61.5 ± 0.040.27 ± 0.001.2 ± 0.03
p value0.75430.90370.9976

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

González-Orozco, M.M.; Prieto-Ruíz, J.Á.; Aldrete, A.; Hernández-Díaz, J.C.; Chávez-Simental, J.A.; Rodríguez-Laguna, R. Nursery Production of Pinus engelmannii Carr. with Substrates Based on Fresh Sawdust. Forests 2018, 9, 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110678

AMA Style

González-Orozco MM, Prieto-Ruíz JÁ, Aldrete A, Hernández-Díaz JC, Chávez-Simental JA, Rodríguez-Laguna R. Nursery Production of Pinus engelmannii Carr. with Substrates Based on Fresh Sawdust. Forests. 2018; 9(11):678. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110678

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Orozco, María Mónica, José Ángel Prieto-Ruíz, Arnulfo Aldrete, José Ciro Hernández-Díaz, Jorge Armando Chávez-Simental, and Rodrigo Rodríguez-Laguna. 2018. "Nursery Production of Pinus engelmannii Carr. with Substrates Based on Fresh Sawdust" Forests 9, no. 11: 678. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110678

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop