Abstract
Substrate and mycorrhization are important aspects when producing plants. The objective of the study was to determine the effect of three substrates inoculated with ectomycorrhizal fungal spores on the morphological characteristics of nursery-grown Pinus durangensis as well as the inherent costs of the substrate. A randomized block experimental design with a 3 x 3 factorial arrangement was used. The substrates evaluated were: 1) peat, vermiculite, and perlite (50:25:25) [PVP]; 2) peat, composted bark, and raw sawdust (50:25:25) [PBS]; and 3) peat and bark (50:50) [PB]. The mycorrhizal inoculants were: 1) Pisolithus tinctorius; 2) Laccaria laccata; and 3) control. The plant was produced in black polyethylene tubes (160 mL) and evaluated at 13 months. The substrate factor presented statistical differences (p ≤ 0.05) in the variables evaluated, with higher values in PVP, followed by PBS and PB, the latter being similar to each other. The mycorrhizal inoculation factor showed differences (p ≤ 0.05) in root and total biomass, Dickson’s quality index, and mycorrhizal colonization, obtaining higher values when P. tinctorius was inoculated, except in the last variable, where the application of L. laccata stood out. In the substrate-mycorrhizal inoculation interaction, the most favorable combination was PVP and P. tinctorius. The PVP substrate was 28.4 and 34.6 % more expensive than PB and PBS, respectively. The combined effect of PVP and P. tinctorius produced the best growth, although the substrate was more expensive.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 6
Claim · model-written summary
PVP gave the highest measured nursery variables, followed by PBS and PB, which were similar.
- Taxon
- Pinus durangensis
Pinus durangensist0 - Treatment
- PVPe0
- Outcome
- variables evaluatede0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- PBS and PBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The substrate factor presented statistical differences (p ≤ 0.05) in the variables evaluated, with higher values in PVP, followed by PBS and PB, the latter being similar to each other”
t0“Pinus durangensis”
Claim · model-written summary
P. tinctorius inoculation gave higher root and total biomass and Dickson’s quality index.
- Taxon
- Pinus durangensisPinus durangensist0
- Treatment
- P. tinctorius was inoculatede0
- Interactor
- P. tinctorius
Pisolithus tinctoriuse0symbiont - Outcome
- root and total biomass, Dickson’s quality indexe0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mycorrhizal inoculation factor showed differences (p ≤ 0.05) in root and total biomass, Dickson’s quality index, and mycorrhizal colonization, obtaining higher values when P. tinctorius was inoculated, except in the last variable, where the application of L. laccata stood out”
t0“Pinus durangensis”
Claim · model-written summary
L. laccata inoculation gave the highest mycorrhizal colonization.
- Taxon
- Pinus durangensisPinus durangensist0
- Treatment
- application of L. laccatae0
- Interactor
- L. laccata
Laccaria laccatae0symbiont - Outcome
- mycorrhizal colonizatione0
- Direction
- stood oute0
- Comparator
- P. tinctoriuse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal colonization, obtaining higher values when P. tinctorius was inoculated, except in the last variable, where the application of L. laccata stood out”
t0“Pinus durangensis”
Claim · model-written summary
PVP with P. tinctorius was the most favorable combination for growth.
- Taxon
- Pinus durangensisPinus durangensist0
- Treatment
- PVP and P. tinctoriuse0
- Interactor
- P. tinctoriusPisolithus tinctoriuse0symbiont
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- beste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combined effect of PVP and P. tinctorius produced the best growth”
t0“Pinus durangensis”
Claim · model-written summary
PVP substrate cost 28.4% more than PB.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The PVP substrate was 28.4 and 34.6 % more expensive than PB and PBS, respectively”
t0“Pinus durangensis”
Claim · model-written summary
PVP substrate cost 34.6% more than PBS.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The PVP substrate was 28.4 and 34.6 % more expensive than PB and PBS, respectively”
t0“Pinus durangensis”