Use of Amendments and Microorganisms to Recover Marginal Soils in Pecan Tree Cultivation
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Area of Study
2.2. Experimental Design and Treatments
2.3. Basic and Physical Properties of the Soil
2.4. Fertility Properties
2.5. Cation Ratio and Cation-Exchange Capacity
2.6. Statistical Analysis Response Surface
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Basic and Physical Properties of Soil
3.2. Fertility Properties
3.3. Cation Relationship and Cation-Exchange Capacity
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Elbl, J.; Maková, J.; Javoreková, S.; Medo, J.; Kintl, A.; Lošák, T.; Lukas, V. Response of Microbial Activities in Soil to Various Organic and Mineral Amendments as an Indicator of Soil Quality. Agronomy 2019, 9, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Csikós, N.; Tóth, G. Concepts of agricultural marginal lands and their utilisation: A review. Agric. Syst. 2023, 204, 103560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Delgado-Londoño, D.M. Aplicación de enmiendas orgánicas para la recuperación de propiedades físicas del suelo asociadas a la erosión hídrica. Lámpsakos 2017, 1, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Betancourt, D.; Rodríguez, C.; Benavides, O.L. Producción de un mejorador de suelos a partir de la transformación biológica de la pulpa de café (Coffea arabica), cepa de plátano (Musa paradisiaca) y estiércol de cuy (Cavia porcellus). Rev. Vitae 2016, 23, S522–S525. [Google Scholar]
- Murillo Montoya, S.A.; Mendoza Mora, A.; Fadul Vásquez, C.J. The importance of organic amendments in soil conservation and agricultural production. Rev. Colomb. Investig. Agroindustriales 2020, 7, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Reza-Solis, H.A.; Ojeda-Barrios, D.L.; Rivera-Figueroa, C.; Martínez-Rosales, A.F.; Terrazas-Gómez, A.; Hernán-dez-Rodríguez, O.A. Evaluation of Pecan Nutshell (Carya illinoensis [Wangenh.] K. Koch) in the Production of Jalapeño Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Seedlings. Rev. Terra Latinoam. 2025, 43, e2027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Méndez-Argüello, B.; Lira-Saldivar, R.H. Uso potencial de la zeolita en la agricultura sustentable de la nueva revolución verde. Ecosistemas Y Recur. Agropecu. 2019, 6, 191–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Hernández-Francisco, A.; López-Lara, T.; Hernández-Zaragoza, J.B.; Horta-Rangel, J.M. Zeolita natural proveniente de Puebla como tratamiento de suelos de la región de Querétaro en vías terrestres: Efectos en su comportamiento plástico. Ing. Investig. Y Tecnol. 2021, 22, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Backer, R.; Rokem, J.S.; Ilangumaran, G.; Lamont, J.; Praslickova, D.; Ricci, E.; Subramanian, S.; Smith, D.L. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: Context, mechanisms of action, and roadmap to commercialization of biostimulants for sustainable agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 871, 1473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Soto Parra, J.M.; Piña Ramírez, F.J.; Sánchez Chávez, E.; Pérez Leal, R.; Basurto Sotelo, M. Alternativas orgánicas para disminuir la aplicación de nitrógeno en nogal pecanero. Nova Sci. 2016, 8, 140–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sharma, A.; Agrawal, M.; Singh, A.; Sundaram, S.; Jaiswal, S. A Mechanistic Insight in Cr (VI) Bioremediation by Bacillus spp. SSAU-2 Under Multi-Heavy Metal Contamination. Curr. Microbiol. 2025, 82, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Olivas-Tarango, A.L.; Tarango-Rivero, S.H.; Ávila-Quezada, G.D. Pecan production improvement by zinc under drip irrigation in calcareous soils. Rev. Terra Latinoam. 2021, 39, e992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Piña-Ramírez, F.J.; Soto-Parra, J.M.; García-Muñoz, S.A.; Yañez-Muñoz, R.M.; Pérez-Leal, R. Aplicaciones de enmiendas orgánicas y microorganismos para optimizar parámetros del suelo y rendimiento del nogal pecanero. Rev. Biológico Agropecu. Tuxpan 2019, 7, 22–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Flores-Cordova, M.A.; Soto-Parra, J.M.; Javier-Piña, F.; Pérez-Leal, R.; Sánchez-Chavez, E. Contribución de nutrientes, enmiendas orgánicas y micorrizas, sobre los componentes de rendimiento en nogal pecanero (Carya ilinoinensis). Cultiv. Trop. 2018, 39, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
- Aguilar Santelises, A.; Etchevers Barra, J.D.; Castellanos Ramos, J.Z. Chemical Analysis to Evaluate Soil Fertility; Mexican Society of Soil Science, Ed.; Soil Department, Edition of the Autonomous University of Chapingo: Chapingo, Mexico, 1987; Volume I, p. 214. ISBN 968-6201-00-9. [Google Scholar]
- Presley, B.J. A simple method for determining calcium carbonate in sediment samples. J. Sediment. Petrol. 1975, 45, 745–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. Particle size density. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods; Klute, A., Ed.; SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Thomas, G.W. Exchangeable cations. In Methods of Soil Analysis, 2nd ed.; Agronomy No. 9, part 2; Page, A.L., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Lindsay, W.L.; Norvell, W.A. Development of a Dtpa Soil Test for Zinc, Iron, Manganese, and Copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1978, 42, 421–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rhoades, J.D. Cation exchange capacity. In 2Methods of Soils Analysis, 2nd ed.; Agronomy No. 9, part 2; Page, A.L., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Vargas, H.M.; Zarate, D.L.G.P.; Burguete, H.F. Factoriales fraccionados y superficie de respuesta, uso de paquetes estadísticos para microcomputadoras. Monogr. Man. Estadística Cómputo 1991, 10, 79–88. [Google Scholar]
- SAS. SAS/STATR User’s Guide, Version 6, 4th ed.; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 1989; Volume 2, pp. 1457–1478. [Google Scholar]
- Calero Bravo, G.K.; Villaseñor Ortiz, D.R.; Chabla Carrillo, J.E.; Rodríguez Delgado, I.; Luna Romero, Á.E. Efecto de la aplicación de tres enmiendas edáficas en las características químicas de dos suelos ácidos. Acta Agronómica 2023, 72, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Gutiérrez González, L.S.; Iveth Ortega, F.; Guerrero Morales, S.; Palacios, A.; Rivas Lucero, B.A. Análisis del Suelo y su Importancia en el Cultivo del Nogal Pecanero en el Distrito de Riego 05 Delicias. Rev. Biológico Agropecu. Tuxpan 2022, 10, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Zaragoza-Lira, M.M.; Preciado-Rangel, P.; Figueroa-Viramontes, U.; García-Hernández, J.L.; Fortis-Hernández, M.; Segura-Castruita, M.A.; Lagarda-Murrieta, A.; Madero-Tamargo, E. Aplicación de composta en la producción del nogal pecanero. Rev. Chapingo. Ser. Hortic. 2011, 17, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Luna-Fletes, J.A.; Mancilla-Villa, O.R.; Cruz-Crespo, E.; Can-Chulím, Á.; Martínez-Rodríguez, O.G.; Guevara-Gutiérrez, R.D. Enmiendas orgánicas En Las características edáficas Y El Rendimiento De melón. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agrícolas 2025, 16, e3773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- López, E.S.; Sánchez, I.V.L.; Wong, J.A.C.; Hernández, M.S.; Méndez, J.G.P.; Silva, S.O. Propiedades del suelo y follaje del nogal pecanero en la región norte de Coahuila, México/Soil and foliar properties in walnut trees in the region of northern of Coahuila, Mexico. Braz. J. Anim. Environ. Res. 2022, 5, 2050–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- El-Awady, R.A.; El-Sherpiny, M.A.; El-Kafrawy, M.M. Can foliar application of Titanium and Zeolite Soil Addition Enhance Crisphead Lettuce Production, and Reduce N-Leaching or/and Volatilization? Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 2024, 64, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Doni, S.; Gispert, M.; Peruzzi, E. Impact of natural zeolite on chemical and biochemical properties of vineyard soils. Soil Use Manag. 2021, 37, 832–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mendoza-Dávalos, K.; Sanabria-Quispe, S.; Pérez-Porras, W.; Cosme-DeLaCruz, R. Enmiendas orgánicas y su efecto en las propiedades de suelos alto andinos cultivados con papa nativa (Solanum goniocalyx Juz.et Buk.). Agroindustrial Sci. 2021, 11, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sindesi, O.A.; Lewu, M.N.; Ncube, B.; Meyer, A.; Mulidzi, A.R.; Lewu, F.B. Residual effect of zeolite on soil exchangeable cations and cation exchange capacity in sandy soil cultivated with Swiss Chard. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environmental Engineering (ICCBEE-22), Johannesburg, South Africa, 28–29 November 2023; pp. 36–39. [Google Scholar]
- Schreiber, M.J.; Nunez, G.H. Calcium carbonate can be used to manage soilless substrate pH for blueberry production. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Soto Parra, J.M.; Uvalle–Bueno, J.X.; Sánchez Chávez, E.; Yáñez Muñoz, R.M.; Montes Domínguez, F. Diagnóstico diferencial integrado: Una herramienta para el uso racional de fertilizantes. Frutic. Prof. 2003, 7, 152–156. [Google Scholar]







| Basic and Physical | Fertility | |||||||||
| % | dS m−1 | meq 100 g−1 | % | kg ha−1 | mg kg−1 | |||||
| % saturation | pH | EC | PSBC | OM | CaCO3 | N-NO3 | P | Cu | Fe | Mn |
| 32.64 | 7.90 | 2.70 | 22.55 | 0.88 | 24.51 | 102.27 | 6.95 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 1.10 |
| Cations meq 100 g−1 | (Cation/PSBC)*100 | |||||||||
| K | Ca | Mg | Na | K | Ca | Mg | Na | |||
| 0.99 | 15.21 | 2.99 | 2.11 | 8.61 | 69.98 | 7.86 | 10.82 | |||
| Factors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t ha−1 kg ha−1 | ||||||
| Levels 0 1 5 10 20 | ZEO 0.00 1.20 6.00 12.00 24.00 | CaCO3 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 | BM 0.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 | GM 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 | MF 0.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 | BS 0.00 1.50 7.50 15.00 30.00 |
| Factors | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| t ha−1 kg ha−1 | ||||||
| Levels 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 | ZEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 24.00 | CaCO3 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 | BM 0.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 0.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 0.00 3.00 30.00 60.00 0.00 3.00 15.00 60.00 0.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 | GM 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 1.50 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.30 6.00 0.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 0.30 1.50 3.00 6.00 0.00 3.00 6.00 0.00 0.30 1.50 | MF 0.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 30.00 60.00 0.00 3.00 15.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 3.00 15.00 30.00 15.00 30.00 60.00 0.00 3.00 | BS 0.00 1.50 7.50 15.00 30.00 30.00 0.00 1.50 7.50 15.00 15.00 30.00 0.00 1.50 7.50 7.50 15.00 30.00 0.00 1.50 1.50 7.50 15.00 30.00 0.00 |
| Compound | % | Element | ppm | Element | ppm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Al2O3 | 10.30 | Rb | 192.83 | Co | 9.83 |
| CaO | 15.19 | Sr | 695.67 | Cr | 30.33 |
| Fe2O3 | 3.46 | Th | 18.01 | Cs | 122.53 |
| K2O | 5.47 | U | 5.23 | Cu | 15.87 |
| MgO | 4.35 | Zn | 77.00 | Ga | 14.35 |
| MnO | 0.26 | Zr | 133.30 | La | 23.23 |
| Na2O | 0.85 | Ag | 0.77 | Li | 1486.67 |
| P2O5 | 0.21 | As | 30.90 | Ni | 16.23 |
| SO3 | 0.02 | Ba | 326.67 | Pb | 10.70 |
| Ti SiO2 | 0.24 46.08 | Ce | 94.70 | V | 86.0 |
| Compound | % | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SiO2 | 7.12 | Humidity | 0.47 |
| Al2O3 | 1.81 | Mesh 325 | 91.47 |
| Fe2O3 | 0.71 | 45 microns | |
| CaO | 49.23 | ADP10 | 2.46 |
| K2O | 0.16 | ADP50 | 10.58 |
| Na2O | 0.24 | ADP90 | 37.54 |
| SO3 | 0.23 | ADP10 | 10% < 2.72 microns |
| ADP50 | 50% < 12.35 microns | ||
| ADP90 | 90% < 35.76 microns | ||
| Manure | ||
|---|---|---|
| Properties | Bovine | Goat |
| MO | 16.86 | 19.92 |
| Ash | 58.70 | 51.19 |
| Total C | 24.44 | 28.89 |
| Relationship of C/N | 10.69 | 13.24 |
| N | 2.29 | 2.18 |
| P | 0.25 | 0.28 |
| K | 2.64 | 1.80 |
| Ca | 1.41 | 2.32 |
| Mg | 1.41 | 2.32 |
| N-NO3 mg kg−1 | 577.50 | 588.80 |
| Na | 0.061 | 0.061 |
| Cu | 10.50 | 15.00 |
| Fe | 53.00 | 53.50 |
| Mn | 283.50 | 288.00 |
| Zn | 45.00 | 55.50 |
| CO3 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Humidity | 18.17 | 16.28 |
| pH | 10.27 | 9.09 |
| CE mS cm−1 | 4.00 | 4.03 |
| Factors | |||||||||
| t ha−1 | kg ha−1 | ||||||||
| Zeolite (A) | CaCO3 (B) | Bovine manure (D) | Goat manure (E) | Mycorrhizal fungi (F) | Bacillus subtilis (G) | Eigenvectors Subtotal +/− | |||
| 12.0 R | 3.0 | 30.0 | 3.0 | 30.0 | 15.0 | ||||
| Basic properties (7 variables) | |||||||||
| Subtotal | 20 W | 15 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 61 | 53/8 | |
| Proportion +/− | 18/2 | 13/2 | Factors Y/ Variables 7/7 | ||||||
| Selection | 7/7 | 5/7 | 7 | ||||||
| Factors | Zeolite [11.6 t ha−1] > calcium carbonate [5.1 t ha−1] | ||||||||
| Variables | Electrical conductivity (2.2 dS m2) = organic matter (1.22%) > pH EPS (7.4) > pH CaCl2 (7.4) = carbonates (6.3%) = cation-exchange capacity (30.7 meq 100 g−1) = percentage of saturation (36.4%) | ||||||||
| Fertility (6 variables) | |||||||||
| Subtotal | 20 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 18 | 2 | 59 | 55/4 | |
| Proportion +/− | 20/0 | 13/0 | 4/0 | 1/1 | 16/2 | 1/1 | 11/6 | ||
| Selection | 5/6 | 4/6 | 5/6 | 6 | |||||
| Factors | Zeolite [11.8 t ha−1] > mycorrhizal fungi [58.4 kg ha−1] > calcium carbonate [12.7 t ha−1] | ||||||||
| Variables | Cu (1.75 mg kg−1) > NO3 (152.9 kg ha−1) = zinc (3.5) > Fe (4.31 mg kg−1) > P (15.9 mg kg−1) | ||||||||
| Cations and their relationships (8 variables) | |||||||||
| Subtotal | 18 | 21 | 14 | 15 | 11 | 1 | 80 | 62/18 | |
| Proportion +/− | 17/1 | 21/0 | 12/2 | 12/3 | 11/0 | 1/0 | 12 6 | ||
| Selection | 6/8 | 7/8 | 4/8 | 5/8 | 8 | ||||
| Factors | Calcium carbonate [4.3 t ha−1] > zeolite [19.0 t ha−1] > goat manure [3.5 t ha−1] > bovine manure [39.1 t ha−1] > arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi [33.9 kg ha−1] | ||||||||
| Variables | Ca (20.68 meq 100 g−1) = % K (5.6) = % Na (5.6) = % Mg (11.1) > Na (2.38 meq 100 g−1) = % Ca (69.6) > Mg (3.93 meq 100 g−1) > K (0.61 meq 100 g−1) | ||||||||
| Basic and Physical | Fertility | ||||||||||||
| % | dS m−1 | meq 100 g−1 | % | kg ha−1 | mg kg−1 | ||||||||
| % saturation | pH | EC | PSBC | OM | CaCO3 | N-NO3 | P | Cu | Fe | Mn | Zn | ||
| Original | 32.64 | 7.90 | 2.70 | 22.55 | 0.88 | 24.51 | 102.27 | 6.95 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 1.10 | 0.88 | |
| Amendments | 36.40 | 7.40 | 2.20 | 30.70 | 1.22 | 6.30 | 152.90 | 15.90 | 1.75 | 4.31 | 23.60 3.5 | 3.50 | |
| Cations meq 100 g−1 | (Cation/PSBC) × 100 | ||||||||||||
| K | Ca | Mg | Na | K | Ca | Mg | Na | ||||||
| Original | 0.99 | 15.21 | 2.99 | 2.11 | 8.61 | 69.98 | 7.86 | 10.82 | |||||
| Amendments | 0.61 | 20.68 | 3.93 | 2.38 | 4.98 | 69.60 | 11.11 | 5.60 | |||||
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Palma-Rosas, Y.; Torres-Beltran, N.G.; Pérez-Leal, R.; Orozco-Melendez, L.R.; Ponce-García, O.C.; Soto-Parra, J.M. Use of Amendments and Microorganisms to Recover Marginal Soils in Pecan Tree Cultivation. Agrochemicals 2026, 5, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals5020017
Palma-Rosas Y, Torres-Beltran NG, Pérez-Leal R, Orozco-Melendez LR, Ponce-García OC, Soto-Parra JM. Use of Amendments and Microorganisms to Recover Marginal Soils in Pecan Tree Cultivation. Agrochemicals. 2026; 5(2):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals5020017
Chicago/Turabian StylePalma-Rosas, Yair, Nubia Guadalupe Torres-Beltran, Ramona Pérez-Leal, Laura Raquel Orozco-Melendez, Omar Castor Ponce-García, and Juan Manuel Soto-Parra. 2026. "Use of Amendments and Microorganisms to Recover Marginal Soils in Pecan Tree Cultivation" Agrochemicals 5, no. 2: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals5020017
APA StylePalma-Rosas, Y., Torres-Beltran, N. G., Pérez-Leal, R., Orozco-Melendez, L. R., Ponce-García, O. C., & Soto-Parra, J. M. (2026). Use of Amendments and Microorganisms to Recover Marginal Soils in Pecan Tree Cultivation. Agrochemicals, 5(2), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals5020017

