Next Article in Journal
Accumulation of Soil Metal(loids) in Fast-Growing Woody Plants of the Post-Mining Area of Freiberg, Germany
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Land Use and Management on Soil Properties and Processes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Soil Systems
Volume 9
Issue 2
10.3390/soilsystems9020055
soilsystems-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Quality and Vegetative Development of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) in the Central Peruvian Jungle

by
Andrea Castro-Cárdenas
1,*,
Juanita Ciriaco-Poma
2,
Juan Z. Dávalos-Prado
3 and
Víctor Soto-Aquino
1,*
1
Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad Nacional Intercultural de la Selva Central Juan Santos Atahualpa, Chanchamayo 120301, Peru
2
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Pillco Marca, Huánuco 100111, Peru
3
Department of Química Atmosférica y Clima, Instituto de Química-Física “Blas Cabrera”—CSIC, c/Serrano, 119-28006 Madrid, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soil Syst. 2025, 9(2), 55; https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020055
Submission received: 17 December 2024 / Revised: 29 March 2025 / Accepted: 7 April 2025 / Published: 20 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition for Sustainable Agriculture—2nd Edition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The sustainability of agricultural production and the conservation of tropical ecosystems face significant challenges due to processes such as climate change and soil degradation. This study evaluated the impacts of three biofertilizers—biol (T02), vermicompost (T03), and bokashi (T04)—on soil quality and the vegetative development of two typical plants, Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus), cultivated in the Asháninka locality in the Central Peruvian Jungle. Using a completely randomized experimental design, it was generally found that treatments T04 and, to a lesser extent, T03 improved the soil quality and consequently enhanced the vegetative development of Mahogany and Yaca. Compared with the untreated controls (T01), these biofertilizers generated less dense and more porous soils and increased the water retention, organic matter, pH, and the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients. They also promoted greater biodiversity. These qualities, in turn, stimulated the vegetative development of Mahogany and Yaca, whose leaves showed considerable content of chlorophyll A and B and total chlorophyll. Thus, T03 and especially T04 proved to be effective biofertilizers for the treatment of tropical soils, promoting efficient plant growth and development in species such as Mahogany and Yaca. These findings highlight the great potential of the biofertilizers T03 and T04 in achieving sustainable agricultural production, as well as for the conservation and improvement of tropical forests.

1. Introduction

Sustainable soil management is essential to conserve biodiversity, and the optimization of its physical, chemical, and biological properties ensures its productivity and ecosystem functionality. Soil degradation is a global reality, intensified by unsustainable agricultural practices, deforestation, and the expansion of aggressive anthropogenic activities that alter the vegetation cover and exacerbate the effects of climate change [1,2]. Uncontrolled agricultural activities are recognized as the main factor in soil degradation [3]. It is estimated that 33% of the world’s land is moderately or severely degraded, and an additional 44% faces risks of erosion, acidification, compaction, and chemical contamination [4].
In Latin America, this situation is particularly critical, as the intensification of agriculture and the excessive use of agrochemicals have seriously compromised the soil quality, affecting its structure and reducing its productivity in the long term [5]. On the other hand, since agrochemical residues persist in biodiversity, they end up altering food chains and posing risks to both the environment and public health [6].
Faced with this problem, the use of biofertilizers is becoming established as a promising and viable ecological alternative to mitigate the negative effects of soil degradation, since these products improve the chemical–physical and biological properties of the soil, such as aeration and the water retention capacity. They also increase the availability of essential nutrients for plants and promote microbial activity, which is essential for the decomposition of organic matter and the release of nutrients [7,8,9].
In this context, Swietenia macrophylla (Mahogany) and Artocarpus heterophyllus (Yaca) are species of great ecological and economic value in tropical ecosystems. Mahogany, in addition to its high demand in the timber industry, plays a crucial role in carbon capture and the restoration of degraded forests [10]. This species is classified as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) because it suffers from intense deforestation [11]. On the other hand, the Yaca is a fruit tree of great economic and food importance in various tropical regions [12], and both it and Mahogany are species that are commonly used in the restoration and sustainability of forest ecosystems [12,13,14].
Despite the growing interest in the use of biofertilizers, their impact on forest species in the Central Forest of Peru remains little explored. This region is of the utmost importance given that it is part of the Amazon, an area that is highly sensitive to activities such as deforestation, which bring unpredictable global consequences and a strong impact on processes such as climate change.
In this work, the effects of biofertilizers such as biol, vermicompost, and bokashi on the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil and its relationship with the vegetative development of both Yaca and Mahogany are evaluated. These biofertilizers were chosen taking into account that they not only improve the vegetative growth of plants but also contribute to their resistance to diseases and their adaptation to adverse climatic conditions [15,16]. We believe that the results obtained will provide important information for sustainable soil management and the conservation of forest species in tropical ecosystems, contributing to reforestation strategies and the mitigation of soil degradation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

This work was carried out at Villa Ashaninka (Pichanaqui-Chanchamayo) in the Junin region in the Central Peruvian Jungle (10°55′35” S; 74°52′22” W; 525 m.a.s.l). This region is characterized by a warm, humid, and rainy equatorial climate throughout the year, where the average annual temperature is between 21 °C and 33 °C, with minimum values above 19 °C and maximum values below 35 °C. The average annual rainfall is 458 mm, with average humidity of 65% and a UV index of 5 [17].

2.2. Preparation of Biofertilizers

An area of 6 m × 8 m was prepared for the production of each of the biofertilizers, biol (T02) [18,19], vermicompost (T03), and bokashi (T04) [20,21]. We labeled the control treatment without biofertilizer as T01.
T02 was prepared in a biodigester in which 10 kg of sheep manure, 4 kg of brown sugar, 5 kg of phosphate rock, 6 kg of ash, 3 kg of lime, 1 kg of ground eggshells, 5 kg of kudzu leaves, 250 g of fresh yeast, and enough water to cover three-quarters of the biodigester were added, along with 3 L of “guarapo” (juice from pressed sugar cane). The mixture was fermented for 50 days.
T03 was a commercial organic fertilizer (worm humus) purchased from the company Lombri-Humus Peru [22,23].
T04 was prepared from inputs such as 200 kg of sheep manure, 100 kg of ash, 500 kg of agricultural soil, 1000 kg of organic waste, 5 kg of ground eggshells, 35 kg of lime, 5 kg of sugar, 250 g of dry yeast, effective microorganism (EM) compost [24], and 400 L of irrigation water. All components were mixed homogeneously and the mixture was sprayed with a solution of sugar and EM compost. The mixture was then sealed with plastic to promote fermentation for 15 days, reaching temperatures of up to 42 °C. Weekly turning was performed, and, after 45 days, T04 was harvested.

2.3. Nursery Phase

The nursery was established taking into account the solar orientation and wind patterns. Seedbeds measuring 1 m × 10 m were constructed, on which a layer of washed and fungicide-disinfected sand was applied. After irrigation, holes were created in the sand to sow seeds of Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) and Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), which were then covered with a thin layer of sand.
Once the seedlings reached four leaves, the most vigorous individuals were selected to be transplanted one by one into bags with substrate mixtures composed of agricultural soil, decomposed organic matter, and sand in a ratio of 2:1:1. Humidity was maintained by sprinkler irrigation, especially during the late afternoon hours.

2.4. Plant Placement in the Final Field and Fertilization

After five months in the nursery, the Mahogany and Yaca seedlings were transplanted to the final field. Each plant was labeled with the same nomenclature as for the biofertilizer used, i.e., T04 for the bokashi treatment, T03 for the vermicompost treatment, T02 for the biol treatment, and T01 for the control treatment without any biofertilizer.
At 15 days after planting, the biofertilizers T04 (5 kg per hole), T02 (10 L mixed with 10 L of water), and T03 (5 kg per hole) were applied, following the recommendations of [25].

2.5. Sampling of Biofertilizers and Soils Before and After Fertilization

2.5.1. Sampling of Biofertilizers

To determine the quality and composition of the biofertilizers, 1 L samples of T02 and 1 kg of both T04 and T03 were taken. The physical–chemical and microbiological analyses were carried out in the laboratory of the Foundation for Agrarian Development of the Agrarian University La Molina.

2.5.2. Sampling of Soil Before (M.I.) and After Fertilization

To ensure the representativeness of the soil samples before and after fertilization, subsamples were collected at different points in the plot. After mixing and dividing them, representative samples of 1 kg were obtained, which were subjected to physical–chemical and biological analyses.

2.6. Evaluation of Biometric Parameters

To collect data on both the height and the number of leaves of the plants, 8 samples were randomly selected for each treatment and measurements were recorded at 30, 60, and 120 days after fertilization.

2.7. Evaluation of the Presence of Vegetation and Soil Fauna After the Incorporation of Biofertilizers

After 5 months of treatment with the biofertilizers, the vegetation was evaluated using an observation sheet. Soil samples were taken in an area of 20 cm2 to identify plant species (common name, scientific name, family) and measure the lengths of their roots. In the same samples, the presence of soil fauna (insects, arachnids, annelids, etc.) was recorded and evaluated using a magnifying glass.

2.8. Chlorophyll Determination

The chlorophyll content was determined using the spectrophotometric method. Leaves (8 to 10) were collected from three-quarters of the height of the plants subjected to each treatment. These leaves were ground in a mortar and ethanol (96%) was added; then, aliquots of the solutions were filtered and transferred to 10 mL cuvettes, which were analyzed, using a UV SQ2802 spectrophotometer, in terms of absorbance at wavelengths of 480, 649, and 665 nm. The absorbance values obtained were used to calculate the chlorophyll A, B and total chlorophyll content, applying the equation proposed by [26].

2.9. Statistical Analysis

For data analysis, a database was created in a spreadsheet and subsequently processed using the RStudio (version 4.3.3) and Past 4.11 software. The statistical analysis included an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to assess the presence of significant differences among the studied variables, as well as Tukey’s multiple comparison test to determine differences between treatments. Additionally, the Shannon index was calculated to evaluate the diversity of soil fauna and vegetation. Variables such as the plant height, number of leaves, and chlorophyll concentration were analyzed. The results were expressed in terms of the probability value (p-value) and represented through graphs generated using the employed software.

3. Results

3.1. Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Physical Characteristics

Figure 1 shows the physical properties of the soil before and after fertilization. The use of biofertilizers caused a significant decrease in the apparent density of the soil (see Figure 1a), particularly in treatments T03 and T04, decreasing in the latter by up to 15% with respect to T01. Consequently, as expected, the porosity (Figure 1b) increased significantly with T04 (~57%). This soil could be described as a highly porous or less dense soil. On the other hand, it could be seen that the porosity with T02 was highly similar to that of T01 (~52%).
The water retention capacity (WRC) of the soil (see Figure 1c) was also positively influenced by the treatments and especially the application of the biofertilizers. Thus, with T03, we obtained the highest WRC value (almost 25%), whereas T02 and T04 had comparable values, at ~1% less than T03 but ~2% more than T01.

3.2. Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Chemical Characteristics

Before the application of the biofertilizers (M.I.), the soil had a slightly acidic pH, with a value of 6.23. The use of treatment T01 led to almost no variation in this parameter; in contrast, treatments T03 and T04 increased the pH to a value of 6.7, and, with T02, the soil reached a neutral pH (see Figure 2a).
The initial content of organic matter (OM, see Figure 2b) in the soil M.I. was small, at 0.6%. For T01, it increased by 0.3%, and the use of biofertilizers increased the OM significantly, especially with T03 and T04, reaching the highest value with the latter (2.73%). Thus, T03 and T04 could be classified as soils with medium OM content, while T02, like T01, rather fell into the category of soils with low OM content. A similar tendency occurred for the nitrogen content (see Figure 2c), where the value for OM was low (14.44 kg/ha.year); however, T01 increased this value by 39.5% (20.15 kg/ha.year), and the increases with T02, T03, and T04 were even larger. This was between three and five times more than for M.I., particularly with T04 (65.6 kg/ha.year). Finally, the phosphorus content (Figure 2d) also increased after the application of the treatments, particularly with T04 (46.85 mg/kg), where it was almost 23% higher than for T03 and T02 (~38 mg/kg), and these were in turn almost double that of T01. Even the phosphorus content in T01 was almost six times higher than in M.I.

3.3. Effects of Biofertilizers on the Biological Characteristics of the Soil: Fauna and Vegetation

The evaluation of the soil fauna, carried out before and after the application of the biofertilizers, revealed a notable increase in species richness (Table S1), particularly with the T03 and T04 treatments, which recorded, respectively, 84 and 73 units; these values were almost three times higher than with T01 (see Table 1). The Shannon–Wiener indices, H, reported in Table 1, also account for the increase in biodiversity in the systems with the treatment, particularly notable with T02 and T03 (H = 2.528). It is worth mentioning that the most abundant taxonomic groups included Hymenoptera, Haplotaxis (annelids), Lepidoptera, and Diptera, with the predominance of the first two (Table S2).
The growth and biodiversity of vegetation followed the same trend as that of the fauna described above (Table S3), highlighting the T03 and T04 treatments, with which more than twice as many units were recorded than with T01 (Table S4). We highlight the greater biodiversity found with T03 (H = 1.085).

3.4. Biometric Parameters: Average Height and Average Number of Leaves (nL)

Table 2 shows the average heights of growth, after 30, 60, and 120 days, of the Yaca and Mahogany plants, as well as their corresponding numbers of leaves (nL) for the different applied treatments. We can see that the Yaca plants were taller than the Mahogany plants, with a growth sequence of T04 > T03 > T02 > T01 during the first 30 days; after this, the growth rate slowed down such that the rate of T04 was similar to that of T01 (~0.13 cm/day) and somewhat lower than that of T03 (~0.15 cm/day). In the case of Mahogany, the T03 treatment was the one that most favored plant growth from the start, reaching, after 30 days, lengths with a sequence of T03 > T04 > T02 > T01. From this period onwards, the growth rates were similar to those of Yaca. It is worth mentioning that the statistical treatment of our data indicated high reliability (p < 0.05).
The evolution, according to the treatment, of nL, for both plants, was highly similar (see Table 2) after 30, 60, and 120 days. The increase in nL with T02 was equal to the increase with T01 for all periods considered. During the first 30 days, treatment T04 favored nL, with the sequence of its increase being T04 > T03 > T02 = T01. After 30 days, the increase in nL slowed down, and similar rates were achieved with all treatments (~0.13 leaves/day).

3.5. Chlorophyll Content in Leaves of Yaca and Mahogany

The analysis of the chlorophyll concentration in the leaves of Yaca and Mahogany (see Table 3) revealed that the T04 treatment exhibited the highest values of total chlorophyll (0.39 μg/g) and chlorophyll A (0.27 μg/g) in Yaca, which represented, with respect to T01, an increase of 30% and ~23%, respectively. Meanwhile, in Mahogany, these increases were smaller and represented ~17% (total chlorophyll) and ~14% (chlorophyll A). It is worth mentioning that the content of total chlorophyll (0.30 μg/g) and chlorophyll A (0.22 μg/g) with T01 was similar for the leaves of both plants, and these were the lowest values of the treatments considered.
Regarding the chlorophyll B content, the highest levels corresponded to the T03 treatment for Yaca leaves (0.50 μg/g) and T04 for Mahogany leaves (0.44 μg/g). These values represent, with respect to T01, increases of 25% and 19%, respectively.
With treatment T02, for both plants, the increases in chlorophyll (total, A and B) represent, with respect to T01, almost half of the corresponding increases given with T03. On the other hand, also with T02, the increase in chlorophyll A was the same for both plants (9%), while the increases in chlorophyll B and total chlorophyll were greater in Yaca leaves (~13%) than in Mahogany leaves (~3 and ~7%).
It is important to mention that the data on the content of chlorophylls A, B and total chlorophyll in Mahogany leaves, obtained under all considered treatments, did not have statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). In contrast, except for the content of chlorophyll B, these data for Yaca were statistically well distinguishable (p < 0.05)

4. Discussion

4.1. Effects of Biofertilizers on Physical Properties

The results obtained in relation to the soil bulk density confirm that biofertilizers play a crucial role in improving the soil structure. An inverse relationship was observed between the density and water and nutrient retention capacity, in agreement with the findings of [27]. In particular, the treatment with T04 showed the lowest density, which can be attributed to its high organic matter content and the presence of active microorganisms that facilitate the formation of stable aggregates and improve the soil porosity. This result agrees with previous studies [28,29] that show that the addition of biofertilizers increases biological activity and promotes the development of macropores, generating a more structured and aerated soil.
T04, being a fermented biofertilizer, presents a higher concentration of beneficial microorganisms that accelerate the decomposition of organic matter and promote the formation of a functional pore network [30]. However, although T03 also improved the soil physical properties, its bulk density was slightly higher compared to T04, possibly due to its composition and slower mineralization rate [31].
The results also show that the application of T04 favors the formation of macropores, which improves the water infiltration capacity and gas exchange, key factors for optimal root development [32]. In contrast, the initial soil samples and the control treatment T01 presented lower porosity, suggesting greater compaction. According to [33], compaction reduces root growth and nutrient availability, negatively affecting plant productivity.
Regarding the WRC, soils treated with T03 presented higher water availability compared to T01. This is consistent with the studies in [34,35], which argue that soils with lower porosity reach their wilting points quickly, limiting water uptake by plants at critical growth stages. The observed improvement in the WRC and porosity after the application of treatments T03 and T04 reinforces the evidence that biofertilizers can positively modify the soil physical properties, as also pointed out by previous research [36].
From an ecological point of view, these results highlight the importance of using biofertilizers as a strategy for the regeneration of degraded soils in tropical ecosystems. The improvement in porosity and water retention not only optimizes agricultural productivity but also contributes to soil’s resilience to extreme climatic events, such as prolonged droughts [37,38]. This underlines the need to promote the use of biofertilizers in sustainable agricultural systems, minimizing the dependence on chemical inputs and promoting the conservation of soil biodiversity. Furthermore, it is important to note that our study was conducted under specific soil and climate conditions, so future research should include long-term trials under different agroecological conditions to validate the stability of these effects over time.

4.2. Effects of Biofertilizers on Chemical Properties

The results obtained on the pH after the application of biofertilizers coincide with the findings of [39], which reported that an increase in soil pH is associated with higher content of nitrogen and phosphorus, elements commonly provided by biofertilizers. A pH close to neutrality is beneficial, since it improves the availability of essential nutrients such as calcium, magnesium, and potassium, in addition to favoring soil microbial activity [39,40]. These results are also in line with previous studies, such as that of [37], which showed a reduction in soil acidity after the application of organic fertilizers.
The differences observed in the OM content can be attributed to the variable compositions of the biofertilizers used, which included different types of plant residues and manures [36]. OM plays a key role in improving the soil structure, water retention capacity, and biological activity, promoting the balance of soil ecosystems [41,42]. The incorporation of biofertilizers, especially those with high content of fermented residues, increases microbial activity and favors the decomposition of organic matter, facilitating its integration into the soil matrix.
Regarding nitrogen availability, a variation was observed depending on the quality of the applied biofertilizer. The release of nitrogen into the soil is regulated by processes such as the mineralization of organic matter, biological fixation, and leaching losses [43]. Previous studies [44,45] have shown that the application of biofertilizers enriches the soil with organic nitrogen, which, through its progressive mineralization, guarantees a long-term source of nitrogen available for plants.
The increase in phosphorus availability in treated soils is related to the increase in OM, which acts as a reservoir of this nutrient and facilitates its mineralization [46]. Biofertilizers not only increase the total phosphorus content in the soil but also reduce losses through fixation and leaching, ensuring the greater availability of this nutrient for plants [47]. This aspect is key, since extractable phosphorus is a fundamental indicator to evaluate the capacity of the soil to efficiently supply this nutrient for plant growth [48].
These findings are consistent with previous research highlighting the benefits of biofertilizers in improving soil chemical properties. For example, [49] reported significant increases in OM content and the availability of essential nutrients after the application of biofertilizers. Overall, these results underline the importance of biofertilizers as organic amendments that contribute to improving soil fertility, optimizing microbial activity, and promoting a more favorable environment for crop development.

4.3. Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Biological Properties

The results of the Shannon–Wiener index, H, indicate that the application of biofertilizers favored a more diverse and complex soil environment, which represents a positive indicator of soil health [50]. This finding highlights the fundamental role of soil macrofauna in the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems [51]. In particular, treatments T03 and T04 showed the significant enrichment and diversification of these communities, evidencing the effectiveness of biofertilizers in promoting soil biodiversity.
The predominance of Hymenoptera and annelids in these treatments underlines the importance of these functional groups in the decomposition of organic matter, the regulation of biological populations, and the formation of the soil structure [52]. In this context, earthworms play a key role as ecosystem engineers, significantly improving the soil quality through bioturbation and increasing nutrient availability, as documented in various studies [53,54].
The results obtained confirm that the application of T03 positively impacted the biodiversity of soil fauna, reflected in the increase in the H index. This increase suggests that T03 provides a more favorable environment for the establishment of a diverse and functionally active soil community [55]. Previous research has also shown that vermicompost stimulates soil biological activity, strengthening the food web and promoting beneficial interactions between soil organisms [56].
Regarding vegetation, the results suggest that biofertilizers can favor plant development, with positive implications for the recovery of degraded soils and the improvement of plant biodiversity [57]. Although the H index did not reach the expected values, a positive trend towards greater species diversity was observed in the biofertilizer treatments [58]. The presence of pioneer species, such as legumes and grasses, indicates that biofertilizers contribute to ecological succession, generating favorable conditions for the formation of a more complex plant community in the long term [59].
These results emphasize the role of biofertilizers as a key tool for the restoration of degraded ecosystems and the transition towards more sustainable agricultural systems [60]. Although the effects on vegetation in the short term were lower than expected, the application of biofertilizers has been shown to improve soil quality [61]. By optimizing its structure and increasing nutrient availability, more favorable conditions are created for the establishment of a resilient and productive soil–plant ecosystem [62]. Previous studies have reported a close relationship between soil macrofauna and ecosystem productivity, suggesting that the continuous use of biofertilizers can promote soil biodiversity and, consequently, increase its long-term productivity [63].

4.4. Effects of Biofertilizers on the Biometric Properties of Yaca and Mahogany

The results show that the application of biofertilizers promoted more vigorous leaf development, although the response varies depending on the type of biofertilizer used and the soil and climate conditions. The responses observed in Yaca and Mahogany agree, in some cases, with previous findings. In this regard, it is important to mention that the literature reports diverse results. For example, [64] reported significant increases in the height and number of leaves; however, [65,66] reported less pronounced effects. This diversity suggests that the optimization of the use of biofertilizers requires a detailed evaluation considering the specific factors of the context.
The incorporation of OM in biofertilizers has proven to be an effective strategy to enhance plant growth. Previous research, such as that of [67,68], highlights the role of organic residues in the production of high-quality biofertilizers. In particular, [69] found that compost based on chicken manure and other organic residues significantly improved the growth of Mahogany. These findings, together with those of this study, emphasize the importance of properly selecting inputs and adjusting their application rates.
Overall, the results suggest that the application of biofertilizers not only increases the plant size but also stimulates the production of new leaves. This is relevant, since a greater number of leaves can improve the photosynthetic capacity of plants, promoting more robust and sustainable growth. The combination of an increased height and greater leaf density reinforces the potential of biofertilizers as an effective agronomic practice for crop improvement and their applicability in reforestation and tree species conservation programs.

4.5. Effects of Biofertilizers on Chlorophyll Content in Leaves of Yaco and Mahogany

Our results differ from those reported in [70], whose authors did not find significant differences in chlorophyll content in treatments applied to Raphanus sativus and Lactuca sativa. This discrepancy may be related to factors such as the composition of the biofertilizers, the physiological characteristics of each species, and the environmental conditions of the experiments. According to [71], the availability of nitrogen in the soil has a direct impact on the chlorophyll levels, although [72] emphasized that other factors, such as the climatic conditions, also influence the nutrient assimilation and vegetative development of plants.
The analysis of photosynthetic pigments indicated that chlorophyll B was the predominant pigment in the leaves of Yaco and Mahogany. This result is consistent with those obtained in [71], whose authors found that the proportions of chlorophyll A and B can vary significantly between species and in response to environmental factors. In addition, [31] found variations, according to the seasonal period, in the chlorophyll concentration in Avicennia germinans, attributing these changes to soil salinity.
The results of this study and previous research highlight the importance of considering both internal factors (plant species, physiological characteristics) and external factors (edaphoclimatic conditions and nutrient availability) in the analysis of leaf chlorophyll content. This is essential to develop more effective and sustainable agronomic strategies that maximize crop yields and favor the conservation of natural resources.

5. Conclusions

In this work, we present the results of the effects of biofertilizers, namely biol (T02), vermicompost (T03), and bokashi (T04), on the soil quality and vegetative development of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) cultivated in the Villa Ashaninka locality of the Peruvian Central Forest (Junin region).
Regarding the soil quality, and taking as a reference the T01 treatment (without biofertilizer), we found that the decrease in density and the increases in porosity, organic matter (OM), nitrogen, and phosphorus content were more significant with T04, while the water retention capacity (WRC) was superior with T03. Both treatments T03 and T04 slightly increased the pH of the soil. This tendency was reflected in both the fauna and the vegetative development of the soil, where the T03 and T04 treatments increased the richness of species, both in number and biodiversity (considerable Shannon–Wiener H indices) in fauna with the predominance of heminopterans and annelids.
Regarding the vegetative development of Mahogany and Yaca, the biometric parameters showed that, after the first 30 days of cultivation, the Yaca plants reached larger sizes than those of Mahogany, favored by the T04 treatment, while T03 favored the growth of Mahogany. Periods longer than 30 days (60 and 120 days) showed slower growth (approximately 0.13 cm/day) for both species, being similar with all treatments. On the other hand, the evolution of the number of leaves in Yaca was essentially the same as in Mahogany; in both, this was favored by the T04 treatment.
The chlorophyll content in the leaves of Mahogany and Yaca revealed that the highest concentrations of chlorophylls were found in the latter. The T04 treatment favored the content of chlorophylls A and total, while T03 favored the content of chlorophyll B.
Finally, we would like to highlight that the incorporation of the biofertilizer T04, and also T03, improved the quality of the soil and facilitated the vegetative development of characteristic plants, such as Yaca and Mahogany, from the Central Peruvian Jungle. However, it is important to mention that additional studies are required, such as the long-term evaluation of the nutrient dynamics of biofertilized soils in the physiological processes of plants, and it is also necessary to study the adjustment of the doses and specific formulations of these treatments to maximize their effectiveness in different agroecological contexts.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/soilsystems9020055/s1, Table S1. Abundance of edaphic fauna found before and after fertilization; Table S2. List of fauna identified after the application of biofertilizers; Table S3. List of vegetation identified after the application of biofertilizers; Table S4. Abundance of vegetation fauna found before and after fertilization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, investigation, formal analysis, project administration, A.C.-C.: software, data curation, resources, J.C.-P.; validation, writing—review and editing, supervision, J.Z.D.-P.; methodology, formal analysis, visualization, writing—original draft, V.S.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Rojas Briceño, N.B.; Barboza Castillo, E.; Maicelo Quintana, J.L.; Oliva Cruz, S.M.; Salas López, R. Deforestación en la Amazonía peruana: Índices de cambios de cobertura y uso del suelo basado en SIG. Bol. Asoc. Geógr. Esp. BAGE 2019, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Trinidad-Santos, A.; Velasco-Velasco, J. Importancia de la materia orgánica en el suelo. Agro Product. 2016, 9, 52–59. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vivas Darío, G.D. Efectos de la Contaminación por Agroquímicos en Agua y Suelo. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Cientifica del Sur, Lima, Perú, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  4. FAO. Estado Mundial del Recurso Suelo; FAO: Roma, Italy, 2015; p. 92. [Google Scholar]
  5. Shi, X.; Hao, X.; Shi, F.; Li, N.; Tian, Y.; Han, P.; Wang, J.; Liu, P.; Luo, H. Improving Cotton Productivity and Nutrient Use Efficiency by Partially Replacing Chemical Fertilizers with Organic Liquid Fertilizer under Mulched Drip Irrigation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 216, 118731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Campos Carranza, O.; Sarango Moreto, O. Uso de Plaguicidas Agrícolas y Contaminación de Suelos en el Distrito de Bellavista–Jaén. Experimental Cuantitativa; Universidad Nacional De Jaen: Jaen, Perú, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Salamanca Castillo, G.F. Efecto de los Agroquímicos en Salud Pública y Medio Ambiente; Experimental Cuantitativa; Universidad Militar Nueva Granada: Bogota, Colombia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  8. García Gutiérrez, C.; Félix Herrán, J.A. Manual para la Producción de Abonos Orgánicos y Bioracionales; Ruelas Ayala, R.D., Ed.; Primera edición: Fundación Produce Sinaloa, A.C., 2014; Fundación Produce Sinaloa, A.C.: Culiacán, Mexico, 2015; ISBN 978-607-8347-33-9. [Google Scholar]
  9. Carraturo, F.; Siciliano, A.; Giordano, A.; Di Capua, F.; Barone, F.; Casaletta, E.; Cicotti, F.; Guida, M.; Adani, F. Ecotoxicological Assessment of Waste-Derived Organic Fertilizers and Long-Term Monitoring of Fertilized Soils Using a Multi-Matrix and Multi-Species Approach. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 912, 169341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Falcon Cometivos, J.R. Efecto de tres Abonos Orgánicos en el Prendimiento y Enraizamiento de Estacas de Swietenia Macrophylla (Caoba) en Zungarococha, Iquitos 2020; Experimental Cuantitativa; Universidad Nacional de la Amazonia Peruana: Iquitos, Perú, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  11. Herrera-Feijoo, R.J.; Torres, B.; López-Tobar, R.; Tipán-Torres, C.; Toulkeridis, T.; Heredia-R, M.; Mateo, R.G. Modelling Climatically Suitable Areas for Mahogany (Swietenia Macrophylla King) and Their Shifts across Neotropics: The Role of Protected Areas. Forests 2023, 14, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gwokyalya, R.; Nanteza, A.; Wagaba, H.; Kayondo, S.I.; Kazigaba, D.; Nakabonge, G. Morphological and Genetic Characterization of Jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) in the Kayunga and Luwero Districts of Uganda. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ganchozo Dávila, G.T.; Solórzano Zambrano, A. Captura de Carbono como Criterio para la Conservación de la Caoba (Swietenia macrophylla King) en el Campus Politécnico de la ESPAM-MFL. Bachelor’s Thesis, ESPAM MFL, Calceta, Ecuador, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  14. Khan, A.; Ema, I.; Faruk, M.; Tarapder, S.; Ullah Khan, A.; Noreen, S.; Adnan, M. A review on importance of Artocarpus heterophyllus L.(Jackfruit). J. Multidiscip. Appl. Nat. Sci. 2021, 1, 106–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Domínguez, J.; Lazcano, C.; Gómez-Brandón, M. Acta Zoológica Mexicana; Instituto de Ecología A.C.: Xalapa-Enríquez, Mexico, 2010; pp. 359–371. [Google Scholar]
  16. Acosta Calderón, J.I.; Velez Mendoza, A.G.; Cárdenas Carrión, J.A. Efecto de abonos orgánicos sólidos en la producción de cúrcuma (Curcuma longa L.) en Santo Domingo de los Tsáchilas. Reincisol 2024, 3, 670–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Weather Spark Datos Históricos del Tiempo en Cuzco en Noviembre de 2023 (Perú)—Weather Spark. Available online: https://es.weatherspark.com/h/m/25926/2023/11/Tiempo-hist%C3%B3rico-en-noviembre-de-2023-en-Cuzco-Per%C3%BA (accessed on 13 December 2024).
  18. Pomboza, P.; León Gordón, O.A.; Villacís Aldaz, L.; Vega, J.; Aldás Jarrín, J.C. Influencia del biol en el rendimiento del cultivo de Lactuca sativa L. variedad Iceberg. J. Selva Andin. Biosph. 2016, 4, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bejar Hinostroza, F. Riego Hidropónico con el uso de Biol en Condiciones de Invernadero, Allpachaca–Chiara–Ayacucho, 2022; Experimental Cuantitativa; Universidad Nacional de San Cristóbal de Huamanga: Ayacucho, Perú, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ramírez-Gerardo, M.G.; Vázquez-Villegas, S.; Méndez-Gómez, G.I.; Mejía-Carranza, J.; Ramírez-Gerardo, M.G.; Vázquez-Villegas, S.; Méndez-Gómez, G.I.; Mejía-Carranza, J. Caracterización de abonos orgánicos aplicados a cultivos florícolas en el sur del Estado de México. CienciaUAT 2021, 16, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Amaya Huamani, B.J. Efecto de los Abonos Orgánicos en el Rendimiento y Mancha Foliar del Cultivo de Solanum Lycopersicum en Pichanaki; Universidad Nacional del Centro del Perú: Huancayo, Perú, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  22. Tupayachi Huayhua, G. Efecto de Cuatro Dosis de Humus de Lombriz y dos dosis de Soluciones Nutritivas en Producción de col de Bruselas (Brassica oleracea L. Var. Gemmifera) en Centro Agronómico K’ayra–Cusco; Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad del Cusco (Perú): Cusco, Perú, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mora Rodríguez, F.J. Elaboración de Bokashi de Mayor Contenido Nutricional a Base de tres Tipos de Estiércol y Residuos Vegetales; UTEQ—Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo: Quevedo, Mexico, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mendivil-Lugo, C.; Nava-Pérez, E.; Armenta-Bojórquez, A.D.; Ruelas-Ayala, R.D.; Félix-Herrán, J.A.; Mendivil-Lugo, C.; Nava-Pérez, E.; Armenta-Bojórquez, A.D.; Ruelas-Ayala, R.D.; Félix-Herrán, J.A. Elaboración de un abono orgánico tipo bocashi y su evaluación en la germinación y crecimiento del rábano. Biotecnia 2020, 22, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vergara Giron, D.E. Efecto de Diferentes Sustratos en el Crecimiento y Producción del Anturio (Anthurium andreanum L.) en Fase de Vivero; Experimental Cuantitativa; Universidad Agraia la Selva: Tingo Maria, Perú, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Garcia Pacheco, Y.E.; Morales, N.; Meriño, L.; Palacio Montañez, J.M.; Angarita Santana, A.; Vargas-Barrios, D. Obtención de clorofila a partir de cáscaras de sábila (Aloe barbadensis) por medio de solventes. Inge Cuc 2021, 17, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Prakash, O.; Kumar, R.; Mishra, A.; Gupta, R. Artocarpus Heterophyllus (Jackfruit): An Overview. Pharmacogn. Rev. 2009, 3, 353–358. [Google Scholar]
  28. Moret-Fernández, D.; López Sánchez, M.V. Un Método Sencillo para la Estimación de la Porosidad de un Agregado de Suelo. In Estudios en la Zona No Saturada; Universidad de Alcalá: Alcalá de Henares, Spain, 2015; Volume XII, pp. 3–6. ISBN 978-84-16133-91-8. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ibañez Asensio, S.; Moreno Ramón, H.; Gisbert Blanquer, J.M. Tecnicas de Medida del Espacio Poroso del Suelo; Objeto de Aprendizaje; Universidad Politecnica de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  30. Raj, R.; Swaroop, N.; Thomas, T.; Mohanta, S.R.; Thomas, A. Effect of Vermicompost and Inorganic Fertilizer on Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil on Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). J. Adv. Biol. Biotechnol. 2024, 27, 1263–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gonzalez Barrios, J.L.; González-Cervantes, G.; Chávez-Ramírez, E. Porosidad Del Suelo En Tres Superficies Típicas de La Cuenca Alta Del Río Nazas. ResearchGate 2024, 1, 21–32. [Google Scholar]
  32. Novillo Espinoza, I.D.; Carrillo Zenteno, M.D.; Cargua Chávez, J.; Nabel Moreiral, V.; Albán Solarte, K.E.; Morales Intriago, F.L. Propiedades físicas del suelo en diferentes sistemas agrícolas en la provincia de Los Ríos, Ecuador. Temas Agrar. 2018, 23, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xuan, C.L.; Nguyen, V.L.; Wannavijit, S.; Outama, P.; Khongdee, N.; Sutthi, N.; Nguyen, V.V.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Srisapoome, P.; Van Doan, H. Modulation of Growth, Immunity, and Immune-Antioxidant Gene Expression in Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis Niloticus, Culture under Biofloc System by Dragon Fruit, Hylocereus Undatus, Peel Powder. J. World Aquac. Soc. 2024, 55, e13088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Daza, M.C.; Hernández Flórez, F.; Alba Triana, F. Efecto Del Uso Del Suelo En La Capacidad de Almacenamiento Hídrico En El Páramo de Sumapaz—Colombia. ResearchGate 2024, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Murillo Montoya, S.A.; Mendoza Mora, A.; Fadul Vásquez, C.J. La Importancia de Las Enmiendas Orgánicas En La Conservación Del Suelo y La Producción Agrícola. Rev. Colomb. Investig. Agroind. 2020, 7, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lopez Mtz, J.D.; Diaz Estrada, A.; Martinez Rubin, E.; Valdez Cepeda, R.D.; Lopez Mtz, J.D.; Diaz Estrada, A.; Martinez Rubin, E.; Valdez Cepeda, R.D. Effect of Organic Fertilizers on Physical-Chemical Soil Properties and Corn Yield. Terra 2001, 19, 293–299. [Google Scholar]
  37. Cotrina-Cabello, V.R.; Alejos-Patiño, I.W.; Cotrina-Cabello, G.G.; Córdova-Mendoza, P.; Córdova-Barrios, I.C.; Cotrina-Cabello, V.R.; Alejos-Patiño, I.W.; Cotrina-Cabello, G.G.; Córdova-Mendoza, P.; Córdova-Barrios, I.C. Efecto de Abonos Orgánicos En Suelo Agrícola de Purupampa Panao, Perú. Cent. Agríc. 2020, 47, 31–40. [Google Scholar]
  38. Moya Patiño, F.L.; Farinango Alovachi, A.A. Evaluación de Propiedades Físico-Químicas en Suelos Agrícolas Mediante Abonos Orgánicos en Cultivo de papa (Solanum tuberosum L.) en Santa Martha de Cuba, Carchi. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universidad Técnica del Norte, Ibarra, Ecuador, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  39. Gómez, B.; Alessandra, H. Producción de Biofertilizantes de Bagazo de Cebada, Excretas de Vacuno y Suero de Quesería Mediante Fermentación Homoláctica; Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina: La Molina, Perú, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  40. Osorio, N.W. pH del suelo y disponibilidad de nutrientes. Manejo Integral Suelo Y Nutr. Veg. 2012, 1, 4. [Google Scholar]
  41. Cremona, M.V.; Enriquez, A.S. Algunas Propiedades del Suelo que Condicionan su Comportamiento: El pH y la Conductividad Eléctrica. 2020. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11336/209253 (accessed on 16 December 2024).
  42. Galantini, J.; Landriscini, M.R.; Hevia, C. Contenido y Calidad de la materia orgánica particulada del suelo. 2007. Available online: https://ri.conicet.gov.ar/handle/11336/25723 (accessed on 17 December 2024).
  43. Pascal, S.; Izquierdo, R.; Venegas Yuste, S. La Materia Organica del Suelo. Papel de los Microorganismos. Available online: https://1library.co/document/z3d9v248-materia-org%C3%A1nica-suelo-papel-microorganismos.html (accessed on 14 December 2024).
  44. Centeno, F.M. Nota: Nitrogeno Disponible En El Suelo. Available online: https://www.fertilab.com.mx/blog/207-nitrogeno-disponible-en-el-suelo/ (accessed on 14 December 2024).
  45. Mogollón, J.; García-Miragaya, J.; Sánchez, L.; Chacon, N.; Araujo, J. Potentially available nitrogen from under soils of coffee plantation with different shade trees. Agron. Trop. 1997, 47, 87–102. [Google Scholar]
  46. Celaya, H.; Castellanos, A. Nitrogen Mineralization on Arid and Semi-Arid Land Soil. Terra Latinoam. 2011, 29, 343–356. [Google Scholar]
  47. da Rocha, I.T.M.; do Nascimento Simões, A.; Silva, J.R.I.; de Carvalho, M.N.R.; da Mota Silveira, F.P.; de Souza, R.F.; Ferreira, N.L. Primeiro registro de Aricoris campestris (Bates, 1868) (Lepidoptera: Riodinidae), e ocorrência de insetos danosos na cultura da pitaia (Hylocereus polyrhizus) no Sertão Pernambucano, Brasil. Rev. Ciênc. Agrovet. 2024, 23, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cabos Sánchez, J.; Bardales Vásquez, C.B.; León Torres, C.A.; Gil Ramírez, L.A. Evaluación de las concentraciones de Nitrógeno, Fósforo y Potasio del biol y biosol obtenidos a partir de estiércol de ganado vacuno en un biodigestor de geomembrana de policloruro de vinilo. Arnaldoa 2019, 26, 1165–1176. [Google Scholar]
  49. Candia Díaz, A.B.; Rasche Álvarez, J.W.; Escobar Decoud, N.C.; Fatecha Fois, D.A.; Candia Díaz, A.B.; Rasche Álvarez, J.W.; Escobar Decoud, N.C.; Fatecha Fois, D.A. Disponibilidad de fósforo en suelos del Chaco Central extraído por distintas metodologías. Rev. Soc. Cient. Parag. 2023, 28, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Demir, Z. Effects of Vermicompost on Soil Physicochemical Properties and Lettuce (Lactuca sativa Var. Crispa) Yield in Greenhouse under Different Soil Water Regimes. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2019, 50, 2151–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lagos Burbano, T.C.; Ballesteros Possu, W.; Delgado Gualmatan, W.L. Diversidad de La Edafofauna de Suelos Cafeteros Del Sur de Colombia. Temas Agrar. 2020, 25, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nunes, L.A.P.L.; Pessoa, M.M.C.; Araujo, A.S.F.; Sousa, R.S.; Silva, J.D.C.; Leite, L.F.C.; Barbosa, L.R. Characterization of Edaphic Fauna in Different Monocultures in Savanna of Piauí. Available online: https://dissem.in/p/124858412/characterization-of-edaphic-fauna-in-different-monocultures-in-savanna-of-piaui/ (accessed on 14 December 2024).
  53. Lemos, R.d.S.; Stumpf, L.; Bozzato, J.V.; Figueiredo, J.P.; Brisolara, B.L.; Roschildt, N. A dinâmica da fauna edáfica no primeiro ano de estabelecimento em sistema de plantio direto em Capão do Leão RS. 2023. Available online: https://guaiaca.ufpel.edu.br/handle/prefix/12056 (accessed on 17 December 2024).
  54. Cabrera, G. La Macrofauna Edáfica Como Indicador Biológico Del Estado de Conservación/Perturbación Del Suelo. Resultados Obtenidos En Cuba. Pastos Y Forrajes 2012, 35, 346–363. [Google Scholar]
  55. Matos-Pech, G.; Arcocha-Gómez, E.; López-Hernández, M.B.; Garma-Quen, P.; González-Valdivia, N.A.; Echavarría-Góngora, E.d.J.; Matos-Pech, G.; Arcocha-Gómez, E.; López-Hernández, M.B.; Garma-Quen, P.; et al. Efecto de abonos verdes inoculados en las propiedades químicas de un luvisol férrico de Campeche, México. Terra Latinoam. 2022, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pessotto, M.D.F.; Santana, N.A.; Jacques, R.J.S.; Freiberg, J.A.; Machado, D.D.N.; Piazza, E.M.; Rosa Neto, L.; Antoniolli, Z.I. Relação do uso do solo com a diversidade e a atividade da fauna edáfica. Nativa 2020, 8, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pastor Mogollón, J.; Martínez, A.; Rivas, W.; Meseda, C.; Muñoz, B.; Marquez, E.; Colmenares, M.; Campos, Y. Carbono orgánico como indicador del proceso de desertificación en suelos agrícolas al norte de Venezuela. Suelos Ecuat. 2015, 45, 24–30. [Google Scholar]
  58. Silva, D.E.O.; Costa, R.M.; Campos, J.R.; Rocha, S.M.B.; de Araujo Pereira, A.P.; Melo, V.M.M.; Oliveira, F.A.S.; de Alcantara Neto, F.; Mendes, L.W.; Araujo, A.S.F. Short-Term Restoration Practices Change the Bacterial Community in Degraded Soil from the Brazilian Semiarid. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 6845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. López Serrano, P.M.; Vega Nieva, D.J.; Corral Rivas, J.J.; Briseño Reyes, J.; Antúnez, P.; López Serrano, P.M.; Vega Nieva, D.J.; Corral Rivas, J.J.; Briseño Reyes, J.; Antúnez, P. Diversidad e importancia ecológica de la vegetación arbórea en el Parque El Tecuán, Durango, México. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2022, 13, 34–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Leaño Sanabria, J.J. La importancia de los bosques en Bolivia dentro de la economia ambiental. Rev. Ventana Cient. 2015, 6, 54–58. Available online: http://www.revistasbolivianas.ciencia.bo/scielo.php?pid=S2305-60102015000200008&script=sci_arttext&tlng=es (accessed on 17 December 2024).
  61. Orellana Canales, W.E.; Ochoa Cervantez, D.O.; Eguigurems, J.H. Sucesiones de La Vegetación Con Fines de Restauración Ecológica En La Parte Alta de La Microcuenca Chamalucuara, Siguatepeque, Comayagua, Honduras. Tatascán 2023, 31, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cardona Castaño, J.C.; Rico Carrillo, R.E.; Cuautle García, L.M.; Rosas Acevedo, A.Y. Macrofauna Edafica en Cultivo de Mais (Zea mays) Biofertilizados con Lodos de Cerdo, (perote-México). Rev. Fagropec 2022, 14, 42–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Robles-González, K.K.; Álvarez-Solís, J.D.; Bertolini, V.; Pérez-Luna, Y.C. Diversidad y Propagación de Hongos Micorrízicos Arbusculares Nativos de Un Cafetal Orgánico En Chiapas, México. RevFitotecMex 2023, 46, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Torres-Arias, Y.; Ley-Rivas, J.F.; Gutiérrez-Coronill, Y.; Sánchez, J.A.; Méndez, C.M.; Dávila, G.C.C.; Blandariz, S.R. Caracterización de micorrizas arbusculares en tres formaciones vegetales secas de Punta Guanos, Matanzas, Cuba. Acta Bot. Cuba. 2024, 223. Available online: https://revistasgeotech.com/index.php/abc/article/view/521 (accessed on 17 December 2024).
  65. Torres Ulloa, A.M. Efecto de la Fertilización con Bioles Durante la Fase de Vivero de Swietennia Macrophylla (Caoba). Bachelor’s Thesis, Escuela Superior del Litoral, En Guayaquil, Ecuador, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  66. Pentón-Fernández, G.; Martín-Martín, G.J.; Milera-Rodríguez, M.C.; Prieto-Abreu, M. Efecto Agroproductivo de La Gusanasa Como Bioabono En Dos Especies Forrajeras. Pastos Y Forrajes 2018, 41, 114–122. [Google Scholar]
  67. Bonifacio Maylle, L.M. Efecto de dos Tipos de Abonos Orgánicos Sobre las Propiedades Físicas, Químicas en Suelo Degradado y su Influencia en el Crecimiento del Pacae (Inga Feuilleei) en Supte San Jorge–Leoncio Prado, Huánuco–2019–2020; Universidad de Huanuco: Huanuco, Perú, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wong, M.; Jimenez, E. Comparación del efecto de 2 biofertilizantes líquidos a base de estiércol caprino y vacuno sobre parámetros de crecimiento de algarrobo (prosopis juliflora (sw.) dc.) en fase de vivero. 2009. Available online: https://www.dspace.espol.edu.ec/handle/123456789/509 (accessed on 17 December 2024).
  69. Villegas Cáceres, S. Compost a Partir de Diferentes Tipos de Estiércol, Enriquecido con Microorganismos Eficaces (ME), para el Crecimiento de Plantones de “Caoba” (Swietenia Macrophylla) con Fines de Reforestación; Rioja-2017. Experimental Cuantitativa; Universidad Nacional de San Martin-Tarapoto: Tarapoto, Perú, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  70. Alvarado Jurado, A.A. Efecto de la Incorporación de Diferentes Abonos Orgánicos en el Desarrollo y Contenido en Lípidos, Azúcares y Clorofilas en Cultivos de Hortalizas. Bachelor’s Thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  71. Mendoza Tafolla, R.O.; Juárez López, P.; Ontiveros Capurata, R.E.; AliaTejacal, I.; Guillén Sánchez, D.; Villegas Torres, Ó.G.; Chávez Bárcenas, A.T. Estimación de la concentración de clorofila, nitrógeno y biomasa en arúgula (eruca sativa mill.) mediante mediciones portátiles no destructivas. Bioagro 2022, 34, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Barrantes Madrigal, K.; Ávila Arias, C.; Murillo Cruz, R.; Solís Ramos, L.; Porras Murillo, R.; Herrera Vargas, P.; Barrantes Madrigal, K.; Ávila Arias, C.; Murillo Cruz, R.; Solís Ramos, L.; et al. Relación de la clorofila y el nitrógeno foliar de Gmelina arborea Roxb. en vivero y en campo. Rev. Mex. Cienc. For. 2018, 9, 209–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soilsystems 09 00055 g001
Figure 1. Physical characteristics of the soil before (M.I) and after fertilization: (a) bulk density content; (b) porosity percentage; (c) water retention capacity (WRC).
Figure 1. Physical characteristics of the soil before (M.I) and after fertilization: (a) bulk density content; (b) porosity percentage; (c) water retention capacity (WRC).
Soilsystems 09 00055 g001
Soilsystems 09 00055 g002
Figure 2. Chemical characteristics of the soil before (M.I.) and after fertilization: (a) pH; (b) organic matter (OM); (c) available nitrogen content; (d) phosphorus content.
Figure 2. Chemical characteristics of the soil before (M.I.) and after fertilization: (a) pH; (b) organic matter (OM); (c) available nitrogen content; (d) phosphorus content.
Soilsystems 09 00055 g002
Table 1. Biological characteristics of soil fauna and vegetative development and Shannon–Wiener index.
Table 1. Biological characteristics of soil fauna and vegetative development and Shannon–Wiener index.
TreatmentSoil FaunaVegetative Development
NaHbNaHb
M.I172.39550.673
T01282.503111.067
T02472.528181.072
T03842.528311.085
T04732.51226 1.073
Na: total number of units (total number of individuals found). Hb: Shannon–Wiener index (measure to quantify the biodiversity of a habitat).
Table 2. Average height and number of leaves of Yaca and Mahogany plants, according to the soil treatment applied.
Table 2. Average height and number of leaves of Yaca and Mahogany plants, according to the soil treatment applied.
N aTreatmentAverage Height/cmNumber of Leaves, nL
YacaMahoganyYacaMahogany
30T0135.20 ±21.76 ±1212
T0238.4125.491212
T0342.4129.381515
T0444.6127.441717
p < 0.05p < 0.05p < 0.05p < 0.014
60T0138.6325.241616
T0242.5029.431616
T0346.6933.631818
T0448.5230.952021
p < 0.05p < 0.05p < 0.05p < 0.01
120T0146.4633.432423
T0251.6438.082423
T0355.7543.502726
T0456.5839.302829
p < 0.05p < 0.05p < 0.05p < 0.009
a Number of days.
Table 3. Chlorophyll content (in μg/mg) in Yaca and Mahogany leaves under four treatments (90 days).
Table 3. Chlorophyll content (in μg/mg) in Yaca and Mahogany leaves under four treatments (90 days).
TreatmentYacaMahogany
Average ContentAverage Content
Chlorophyll AT010.22 ±0.22
T020.240.24
T030.260.24
T040.270.25
p = 0.003p = 0.77
Chlorophyll BT010.400.37
T020.450.38
T030.500.39
T040.460.44
p = 0.343p = 0.77
Total chlorophyllT010.300.30
T020.340.32
T030.370.34
T040.390.35
p = 0.011p = 0.71
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Castro-Cárdenas, A.; Ciriaco-Poma, J.; Dávalos-Prado, J.Z.; Soto-Aquino, V. Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Quality and Vegetative Development of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) in the Central Peruvian Jungle. Soil Syst. 2025, 9, 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020055

AMA Style

Castro-Cárdenas A, Ciriaco-Poma J, Dávalos-Prado JZ, Soto-Aquino V. Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Quality and Vegetative Development of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) in the Central Peruvian Jungle. Soil Systems. 2025; 9(2):55. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020055

Chicago/Turabian Style

Castro-Cárdenas, Andrea, Juanita Ciriaco-Poma, Juan Z. Dávalos-Prado, and Víctor Soto-Aquino. 2025. "Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Quality and Vegetative Development of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) in the Central Peruvian Jungle" Soil Systems 9, no. 2: 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020055

APA Style

Castro-Cárdenas, A., Ciriaco-Poma, J., Dávalos-Prado, J. Z., & Soto-Aquino, V. (2025). Effects of Biofertilizers on Soil Quality and Vegetative Development of Mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and Yaca (Artocarpus heterophyllus) in the Central Peruvian Jungle. Soil Systems, 9(2), 55. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems9020055

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop