Content uploaded by Arnulfo Aldrete
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Arnulfo Aldrete on Jan 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
silviculture
Me´xico—Addressing Challenges
to Reforestation
Owen Burney, Arnulfo Aldrete, Rafael Alvarez Reyes,
Jose´ A. Prieto Ruı´z, Jose´R.Sa´nchez Velazquez, and
John G. Mexal
Me´xico’s incredibly diverse forests are designated by federal regulations as “multipurpose” and managed for
the benefit and economic welfare of the local communities. In addition to traditional wood products, the forests
provide grazing lands, nonwood forest products, fuelwood, and ecosystem services. Unfortunately, growing
populations and the structure of the community forest enterprises are placing increasing stress on forest
resources. Furthermore, illegal harvesting, selective logging, routine burning for forage production, and
unsuccessful reforestation efforts have depleted forest resources in many regions. Few local communities possess
adequate forest nurseries to properly reforest degraded areas. The recent recommitment to nursery production
and reforestation by Comisio´n Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR) should lead to improved stand establishment and
growth, especially as forest communities understand the critical link between reforestation and sustained forest
productivity. CONAFOR, a federal agency responsible for reforestation programs, has restructured nursery
production, reduced the total number of nurseries, and contracted with newly established, private nurseries that
now produce 38 million seedlings/year (about 20% of all seedlings produced). The number of community
nurseries has shrunk with this greater reliance on private and military (SEDENA) nurseries, which tend to be
larger and more sophisticated and use containerized seedlings rather than polybag systems. The objective of this
article is to discuss factors leading to these changes and the challenges facing the reforestation program.
Keywords: nursery production, conifers, tropical forests, artificial regeneration, containerized seedlings
A
pproximately 80% of Me´xico’s for-
ests are publicly owned by local
communities (“ejidos”) (Bray et al.
2005a), comparable to Canada where most
of the forestland is publically owned (federal
or provincial). The forest ownership in the
United States is split 60:40 between private
and public. This system of locally owned
and managed forests was established in the
1930s by Miguel Angel de Quevedo, the
father of Mexican forestry (de Quevedo
1935). Whereas the communities “owned”
the forests, the federal government oversaw
and regulated harvest operations and often
awarded concessions to companies without
community input. In the 1970s, individual
communities formed independent forestry
enterprises to better manage forests and the
federal government hired professional for-
esters to assist. Unfortunately, in the early
1980s, funding responsibility was trans-
ferred to the communities, which many, es-
pecially the smaller, could not afford, and
the program was discontinued (Merino-
Pe´rez and Segura-Warnholtz 2005).
The current number of ejido-managed
forests is not clear but could be ⬎2,000,
with forests ranging in size from ⬍500 to
⬎67,000 acres. Many have community-
managed forest enterprises (CFEs), which
include small processing mills. These mills
often are inefficient and frequently have not
adapted to the smaller logs harvested today.
Furthermore, sustainable management pre-
scriptions (i.e., harvested volume restric-
tions) may require mills to close for up to 6
months in a year, restricting income oppor-
tunities (Torres-Rojo et al. 2005).
Locally managed CFEs have received
praise from the global community (Bray et
al. 2005b, Ellis et al. 2014), but not all CFEs
are equally successful. Some, such as one in
the state of Michoaca´n, are highly successful
and serve as a model for CFEs worldwide
(Antinori and Bray 2005). However, CFEs
can also be prone to abuse and corruption
(Klooster 1999), especially if ejidos consist
of both Amerindians and mestizos (com-
Received January 23, 2014; accepted February 23, 2015; published online May 14, 2015.
Affiliations: Owen Burney (oburney@nmsu.edu), New Me´xico State University, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences. Arnulfo Aldrete
(aaldrete@colpos.mx), Colegio de Postgraduados. Rafael Alvarez Reyes (rafael.alvarez@conafor.gob.mx), Comisíon Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR). Jose´ A. Prieto
Ruíz (prieto.jose@inifap.gob.mx), Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas y Pecuarias (INIFAP). Jose´R.Sa´nchez Velazquez (rsanchez@
conafor.gob.mx), CONAFOR. John G. Mexal (jmexal@nmsu.edu), New Me´xico State University, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Las
Cruces, NM.
Acknowledgments: This work was partially supported by the New Me´xico State University Agricultural Experiment Station.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
404 Journal of Forestry • July 2015
J. For. 113(4):404–413
http://dx.doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-007
Copyright © 2015 Society of American Foresters
bined Amerindian and European descent)
(Antinori 2005). Thus, there is tremendous
pressure for forest resources to provide in-
come and employment to “ejidatarios”
(community members). Unfortunately, this
pressure can lead to deforestation and degra-
dation of existing forests with little subse-
quent reinvestment in equipment, roads, or
forest management (Wilshusen 2005).
Although many ejidos manage harvest
and milling operations, few have seedling
nurseries and mostly rely on federal nurseries
to provide seedlings. To counteract defores-
tation, ⬎500,000 acres were reforested each
year in Me´xico during the last decade. How-
ever, seedling survival 1 year after establish-
ment was ⬍50% in many cases (Bello Lara
and Cibria´n Tovar 2000). Numerous factors
contribute to this high rate of mortality in-
cluding drought, poor seedling quality, in-
appropriate time of planting, marginal seed-
ling transportation and storage facilities, and
inadequate infrastructure. Recently, the
Comisio´n Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR),
the Mexican federal institution responsible
for the coordination of seedling production
and reforestation programs, reorganized the
national nursery and reforestation program
to better address deforestation. This re-
newed commitment to the nursery and
reforestation programs is the topic of this
article.
Climatic and Geographic
Variation
The forests of Me´xico occur at elevations
ranging from sea level for tropical hardwoods
to ⬎13,000 ft where both pines (Pinus spp.)
and fir (Abies spp.) occur. Forest soils are
classified as calcisols, leptosols, regosols, and
vertisols (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y
Recursos Naturales [SEMARNAT] 2006).
Me´xico has a variable climate that includes
tropical regions receiving ⬎79 in. of annual
precipitation, arid, temperate regions with
12–47 in. of annual precipitation, and des-
ert landscapes that receive around 10 in. of
annual precipitation. Precipitation tends to
decrease moving northward and toward the
interior of the country. Most precipitation
occurs during the summer monsoon season
(July through October), with snow occur-
ring at the higher elevations.
Forest Types
Temperate forests are important eco-
systems consisting primarily of Pinus and
Quercus species in regions with precipitation
ranging from 24 to 47 in. per year. In 2014,
Me´xico had ⬎345 million acres of forest-
land, including 162 million acres of open
woodland, encompassing 70% of the total
land area (CONAFOR 2015). Forest types
range from the dry temperate conifer forests
of northern Me´xico to the tropical rain for-
ests of southern Me´xico. The primary use of
forests in Me´xico is “multipurpose,” i.e., be-
ing used not only for wood products but also
for grazing and nonwood forest products.
Approximately 17% of Me´xico’s land
area comprises temperate forests (pine or
pine-oak) in the Sierra Madre Occidental,
Sierra Madre Oriental, and Sierra Madre del
Sur (Palacio-Prieto et al. 2000) (Figure 1).
The important taxa are up to 46 species of
Pinus (Perry 1991, Farjon et al. 1997), 200
species of Quercus (“encino”) (Rzedowski
1988), Abies religiosa (“oyamel”), Pseudot-
suga menziesii (“abeto”), Cupressus lusitanica
(“cedro blanco”), and Taxodium mucrona-
tum (“ahuehuete”). Harvest activities focus
primarily on pine species.
Tropical forests occupy about 16% of
the country along the coasts and the Yucatan
peninsula (Palacio-Prieto et al. 2000) and
are equally divided between rainforests
and forests with pronounced dry seasons.
Important tropical species include Cedrela
odorata (“cedro rojo”), Swietenia macro-
phylla (“caoba”), Tabebuia rosea (“maculis”),
Leucaena leucocephala (“guaje”), and exotic
species Gmelina arborea (“melina”), Tectona
grandis (“teca”), and Eucalyptus spp. How-
ever, harvests of valuable tropical hardwoods
(i.e., “caoba” and “cedro rojo”) represent
⬍1% of the total annual harvest (Vester and
Navarro-Martínez 2005). Other tropical
hardwood species are harvested for railroad
ties. Important woodland species include
Prosopis glandulosa (“mezquite”) and Acacia
spp. (“huizache”), which occupy about 26%
of the total land area (Figure 1).
Forest Production
Forest productivity ranges from 3.75 to
12 tons/acre/year with the highest produc-
tivity in the semitropical and tropical forest
regions (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations [FAO] 2003a). The
conifer region of northern Me´xico (Chihua-
hua and Durango) has the capacity to pro-
duce 5–7.5 tons/acre/year, comparable to
that of unimproved southern pine planta-
tions in the southeastern United States
(Stanturf et al. 2003). Me´xico produces
⬍2% of the North America wood products
despite having nearly 10% of the total for-
estland (FAO 1997). The estimated value
garnered from these forestlands is only $22/
acres for Me´xico, compared with $155/acres
for US forestlands. The value of timber har-
Management and Policy Implications
Formerly, most forest nurseries were small and considered primarily as sources of employment for
communities. Seedling quality often was a secondary consideration. Transitioning from polybag systems
to modern containerized systems with subsequent improvements in seedling quality should result in greater
seedling survival and growth. Further consolidation of nurseries and improvements in technology will
probably lead to sustainable forest management predicated on successful reforestation efforts. Changes
unlikely to occur are in the individual management of forest units by local community forest enterprises
(CFEs). Therefore, it is critical that both national needs (e.g., watershed protection and carbon
sequestration) and community needs (e.g., employment and nonwood forest products [NWFPs]) be
integrated into a national forest management strategy that is implemented at the “ejido” (community)
level. There are examples of successful CFEs (e.g., Ellis et al. 2014), but also examples that were initially
successful and later faltered. Torres-Rojo et al. (2005) noted that a Continuing Forestry Education Program
in the state of Guerrero greatly increased contributions to social programs as investment loans for
processing equipment were paid. However, continued investments in forestry increased only slightly,
hardly a model for sustainable forest management. Greater investment of proceeds in infrastructure and
silviculture will enhance the long-term goals. A productive, free-to-grow forest can provide both
commensurable values (timber, NWFPs, and forage) and ecosystem services (carbon sequestration and
watershed protection) to the community and nation, provided that the “ejidatarios” (community members)
are full partners in a move to more productive forests (Charnley 2005). The forest must be viewed as
a renewable resource to be managed for current and future generations rather than as an extractive
industry, whether the product is forage for livestock, fuelwood, legal and illegal timber harvesting, or even
foodstuffs (mushrooms). Shared resources require shared responsibilities and produce shared benefits.
Journal of Forestry • July 2015 405
vests for lumber and plywood amounted to
$565 million in 2012, but the roundwood
harvest has declined from about 350 million
ft
3
to ⬍200 million ft
3
over the last 30
years (Instituto Nacional de Estadística,
Geografía y Informa´tica 1996, 2010) (Fig-
ure 2, left). These harvest levels do not in-
clude illegal harvesting, which may equal le-
gal harvests in total volume. In addition,
FAO (2006) estimates that legal harvests are
20% higher than the official reports. There
is a bimodal appearance to the historic har-
vest level, with the decline in harvests coin-
ciding with the monetary devaluation of
1994 and the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) signed the same year.
Although NAFTA allowed less expensive
wood products into Me´xico, the peso deval-
uation tended to equalize costs (Zabin
1998), and the harvest level recovered
quickly but then continued to decline.
Much of the harvested roundwood is
coniferous with ⬎50% coming from the
states of Chihuahua and Durango (Figure 2,
right), followed by Michoaca´n, Jalisco, and
Me´xico (SEMARNAT 2011a). All of the
states experienced greatly reduced harvests
since the peak harvests of 1985. Further-
more, the percent conifer harvest has de-
clined from 90 to ⬍80% recently (Figure 2,
left). This is partially explained by the de-
crease in conifer stocking (Chapela 2005).
Because pines have been selectively har-
vested, oaks and other species have become
dominant, in part due to limited reinvest-
ment in management and equipment (Tay-
lor 2005) and poor reforestation success.
Harvested timber is used for various
products in Me´xico, including lumber
(⬃60% of harvest), pulpwood (⬃20%),
plywood, fuelwood, and specialty wood
products (e.g., molding). Currently, con-
sumption of wood products is nearly twice
the annual internal production, resulting in
an increasing trade imbalance (Guerrero et
al. 2011). After NAFTA, Me´xico nearly
doubled its imported wood products to ⬎$4
billion annually, with nearly 90% coming
from the United States. Concurrently, ex-
ports of wood products increased to $1.5
billion with up to 97% going to the United
States. Improved reforestation with subse-
quent increased forest productivity could al-
leviate some of the trade imbalance.
Whereas most of the forest’s value is derived
from timber harvests, ⬎90% of the forest-
lands are designated as multipurpose. Har-
vest of nonwood forest products (NWFPs)
includes mushrooms, pinenuts, exudates
(pine resin, gutta percha), medicinal plants,
and aromatics, all of which are an important
source of income for rural communities.
The value of fuelwood was $19 million in
Figure 1. Forest types of Me´xico (Couturier et al. 2012 from Palacio-Prieto et al. 2000,
SEMARNAT 2006).
Figure 2. Total (Œ) and conifer (u) roundwood production (ft
3
)inMe´xico since 1980 (pre-1994, r
2
ⴝ 0.94; post-1994, r
2
ⴝ 0.75), and top
10 producing states for 1985, 1990, and 2010 (Instituto Nacional de Estadı´stica, Geografı´a y Informa´tica 1996, 2010).
406 Journal of Forestry • July 2015
2010 (FAO 2011) and is probably underval-
ued. Nearly 25% of the populace lives in
rural areas, and most (80%) rely on fuel-
wood for their energy needs (FAO 2003a).
Masera (1996) estimated that the fuelwood
harvest was three times the legal timber har-
vest. Even at a base price for carbon of
$0.48/ft
3
, that would represent a value of
⬎$180 million or 10 times the value re-
ported (FAO 2011).
Pressures on Forest Resources
Population growth in ejidos has placed
increased pressure on forest resources. This has
resulted in a loss of 500,000– 870,000 acres
of Me´xico’s forestland (about 0.8%/year)
annually to deforestation (Cairns et al.
1997, FAO 1997), with some estimates as
high as 4.0 million acres/year (Mas et al.
2009). Deforestation is caused by land-use
change (82%), illegal harvesting (8%), arson
(6%), and other factors (4%) (Center for
International Forestry Research [CIFOR]
2010). From 1999 to 2012, nearly 6,000
fires affected ⬎750,000 acres annually
(CONAFOR 2013). Most fires were inten-
tionally set, usually during the winter
months to promote spring regrowth of for-
age (Roma´n-Cuesta et al. 2004), and only
3% were prescribed fires. Unfortunately,
“burning off the woods” to promote forage
regrowth can also destroy recent reforesta-
tion efforts, as can subsequent grazing
(Mexal et al. 2009). Land-use change is the
major cause of deforestation and occurs in
response to population growth and en-
croachment into forests for homesites or tra-
ditional shifting (slash and burn) agriculture
(Barbier and Burgess 2001). As an example,
the states of Chiapas (Couturier et al. 2012)
and Guerrero (Dura´n et al. 2011) in south-
ern Me´xico have lost one-third of their for-
estland in the last 20 years. Tropical defor-
estation could result in one-fifth of endemic
species becoming extinct in the next 20 years
(Mendoza and Dirzo 1999). Furthermore,
deforestation accounts for 10–15% of
Me´xico’s total greenhouse gas emissions.
Elimination of deforestation coupled with
effective reforestation will mitigate ⬎1 mil-
lion tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent per
year (tCO
2
e/year) (CIFOR 2010).
Nursery Systems
Before the mid-1990s, most nurseries
in Me´xico used the polybag (i.e., polyethyl-
ene bags) production system. During this
time, there were an abundance of small nurs-
eries (⬎600) throughout the country (e.g.,
Figure 3). These nurseries had poor linkages
between seedling production and areas re-
quiring reforestation (SEMARNAT 2011b,
2011c). However, in the early 1990s Presi-
dent Carlos Salinas de Gortari promoted ef-
forts to decrease deforestation and increase
forest restoration, thereby helping to link
seedling production with acreage reforested.
The government investment in forest resto-
ration was stimulated by the assistance of the
federal military (SEDENA) in developing
Me´xico’s first nursery programs using mod-
ern nursery containers, as the existing refor-
estation agency was reluctant to either ex-
pand production or modernize existing
nurseries. This conversion was necessary be-
cause seedlings grown in polybags tend to be
poor in quality because of spiraled root sys-
tems (Venator et al. 1985) and the use of
heavy, native soils. In an effort to produce
higher quality seedlings, these new container
nurseries were based on the systems used in
the United States and Canada (e.g., copper-
blocks with 112 or 160 cavities and 4.0 and
4.9 in
3
/cavity).
Despite these conversions, Aldana Barajas
(2000) conducted a survey of many nurser-
ies throughout the country, indicating that
70% of the seedlings were still produced in
polybags with the remaining 30% in mod-
ern containers (SEDENA nurseries), and a
small percentage of seedlings were produced
in bareroot nurseries (Aldana Barajas 2000).
Most nurseries were found to have signifi-
cant problems impeding optimal growing
conditions including infrastructure (irriga-
tion), manual labor, suitable growing media
alternatives, and lack of training.
As of 2013, the number of nurseries has
declined from ⬎600 in the early 1990s to
358 (Figure 4; Table 1). These nurseries
are currently producing approximately 275
million seedlings/year, almost 75% of which
are grown in modern containerized systems.
Most seedlings are grown under contract
with the federal government (CONAFOR)
(Table 1). SEDENA manages most of the
larger nurseries, each growing about 3 mil-
lion seedlings/year, followed by public and
private nurseries, which produce ⬎2 million
seedlings/year on average under a fixed-
price, fixed-quality contract to CONAFOR.
Smaller nurseries, usually under ejido con-
trol, produce ⬍500,000 seedlings/year on a
fixed price and prescribed quality contract
(conciliatory and collaborative agreement).
The advantages of having many small nurs-
eries include employment opportunities in
local communities, use of local seed sources
for production, and proximity to the plant-
ing site. The disadvantages are greater vari-
ability in technical capabilities, loss of econ-
omies of scale efficiencies, greater costs,
and less control over quality issues. As
CONAFOR progresses, greater consolida-
tion of nurseries is likely to occur, leading to
Figure 3. A small polybag nursery installed on contours in a forest hillside in the state of
Michoaca´n, Me´xico.
Journal of Forestry • July 2015 407
a conversion to larger, containerized nurser-
ies with better cost and quality control.
Currently, the conversion to modern
containers and fewer nurseries has not re-
sulted in significant improvements in seed-
ling quality and crop uniformity. Based on
the CONAFOR (2008) nursery evaluation,
some of the same issues found with the po-
lybag system still exist with the new con-
tainer system (Table 2). The primary prob-
lems with both systems concern inadequate
knowledge of biological production and
nursery operations and an understanding of
the relationship between the nursery and re-
forestation programs. In terms of biological
problems, the CONAFOR (2008) evalua-
tion found many nurseries are basing seed-
ling quality solely on height and diameter
while ignoring other indicators such as shoot
to root ratio and sturdiness coefficient. The
evaluation also found inadequate knowledge
in the areas of seedling nutrition and nursery
sanitation and the impacts on seedling in-
sects and diseases and irrigation practices.
Many nurseries substitute excessive shade
for proper irrigation schedules. In addition,
many nurseries are still producing just a lim-
ited number of species, typically from un-
known seed sources. This has a significant
impact on reforestation success because it
concerns genetic and species diversity as well
as matching proper seed sources and species
to a specific outplanting site. Outside the
bounds of the biological production, there
continue to be operational issues including
proper packaging of seedlings, seedling
transportation, payment schedules, seed
availability, equipment replacement and
maintenance, organizational planning, and
crop scheduling, which all can affect nursery
performance. For example, some nurseries
transport seedlings in their containers (e.g.,
styroblocks), which often are broken or re-
turned late, disrupting the next crop cycle if
sufficient containers are not available. Ex-
tracting seedlings and wrapping the root-
balls in plastic obviates this problem while
protecting the roots during transport, and
some nurseries are beginning to use this
technique. In addition, these nurseries are
using trailers with shelving to transport seed-
lings rather than the more common use of
pickup trucks. Frequently, delayed crop
scheduling results in seedlings held over for
an additional year. Modern container vol-
umes are typically smaller than that of poly-
bags (e.g., 10–24 in
3
versus 30–60 in
3
),
which leaves little room for excess root
growth during holdover periods, resulting
in a higher likelihood of root-bound
seedlings.
In addition to the continued nursery
problems of both the polybag and container
systems, new issues have arisen under the
new container system. Growing media for
containers can be expensive, especially if
peat moss is a major component, but ongo-
ing research on pine bark, coffee residue, ba-
gasse coir, and sawdust may provide alterna-
tives to alleviate these costs. Research is
underway in Me´xico to demonstrate the fea-
sibility of peat alternatives (Reyes-Reyes et
al. 2005, Sa´nchez-Co´rdova et al. 2008, Mal-
donado-Benitez et al. 2011). Defining alter-
native media types can reduce costs and sup-
port new employment opportunities for
Figure 4. Distribution and type of nurseries in Me´xico (CONAFOR 2013).
Table 1. Type of nursery and production in 2013.
Nursery type No.
Seedling production
Temperate Tropical Total % Average size (no./yr)
........(million) ........
Conciliatory and collaborative
agreements
1
286 103 14 117 50 434,000
SEDENA 20 31 28 59 25 2,950,000
Public bid 18 38 0 38 17 2,235,000
CONAFOR 34 2 1 3 1 103,000
Holdover seedlings 8 8 16 7 NA
Total 358 182 51 233 100 653,000
Data from Rafael Alvarez Reyes, CONAFOR, pers. comm., August 2013. NA, not applicable.
1
Conciliatory and collaborative agreements are contracts between CONAFOR and private or community nurseries for a fixed
quantity of seedlings where the price is fixed and production practices are prescribed by CONAFOR.
408 Journal of Forestry • July 2015
locally supplied growing media compo-
nents. In fact, a new enterprise in the state of
Durango is marketing pine bark to con-
tainer nurseries based on this research, but to
date, those nurseries have replaced only 40%
of the peat moss with pine bark (Salvador
Castro, San Luis Tlaxialtemalco Nursery,
México State Division of Forestry, Xochilm-
ilco, Distrito Federal, México, pers. comm.,
May 22, 2014). Fertilizers are another high-
cost issue with container systems. Slow-re-
lease fertilizers produced in Me´xico cost up
to 8 times as much as US-manufactured fer-
tilizers and many times more than commer-
cial agriculture fertilizers.
There are many gaps in knowledge and
technology associated with the container
system that continue to contribute to failure
to improve nursery and seedling perfor-
mance. Most nursery issues discovered by
the CONAFOR (2008) evaluation and
other sources can be addressed through
proper training and education of nursery
managers. CONAFOR has begun to fill
these knowledge gaps with annual, regional
training sessions throughout the country as
seen in 2013 and 2014. These short courses
covered activities such as irrigation schedul-
ing and uniformity, fertilization regimes
over the growth cycle of the crop, harvesting
and handling of seedlings, and pest manage-
ment. Further advances will require identi-
fication and tracking of seed sources to iden-
tify superior performance as well as setting
target seedling guidelines on field-based re-
sults. Although target specifications based
on other species is a good place to begin, site-
and species-specific recommendations based
on field trials are needed.
Reforestation Systems
Throughout the history of Me´xico’s re-
forestation efforts, limitations in reforesta-
tion success have been and continue to be
primarily due to both a lack of education
and poor economics. In the 1970s, the fed-
eral government hired consulting foresters
to assist ejidos in the management of their
forests (Merino-Pe´rez and Segura-Warn-
holtz 2005). Unfortunately, when the cost
was transferred to the communities, many
ejidos abandoned their forest management
programs including reforestation efforts.
Many of the ejidatarios are Amerindians
who rely on the communal land for subsis-
tence, primarily from grazing livestock and
agriculture. Many communities do not un-
derstand the critical role of forests at the lo-
cal level in the form of income and wood
products and thus are reluctant to plant
seedlings simply because of the cost of labor
(FAO 2003b). Seedlings cost about $0.18
each to produce, but are provided free
of charge to ejidos. Community trees are
planted by volunteers as part of community
service and communities are awarded $0.08
for each seedling surviving after 1 year (Sal-
vador Castro, pers. comm., May 22, 2014).
Unfortunately, seedlings often are subjected
to damage and/or mortality from fires set to
promote forage production for livestock,
grazing (trampling or consumption), or a
lack of weed control.
When programs converted from poly-
bags to modern containers, knowledge gaps
contributed to continued failures in seedling
establishment. The major causes of mortal-
ity (i.e., drought and seedling quality) are
remarkably similar to those of earlier surveys
when polybag seedlings predominated
(Figure 5). In the 1998 planting season,
seedling survival was 44% and most of the
mortality was the result of poor seedling
quality and drought (Bello Lara and Cibria´n
Tovar 2000). There was no change from
2000 to 2011 during which survival aver-
aged only 48% with causes of mortality sim-
ilar to those in earlier reports (Universidad
Autono´ma Chapingo-CONAFOR 2012,
Rafael Alvarez Reyes, CONAFOR, pers.
comm., May 2013). No explanation for
“drought” was given in any of these reports.
It may be that the causal drought was in fact
imposed before the seedlings were actually
planted. Mexal et al. (2009) visited sites re-
peatedly, including shortly after establish-
ment, to determine causes of mortality.
Seedling and planting quality were signifi-
cant factors in loss, but drought was not.
Table 2. Results of the nursery evaluation.
Concept Situation Recommendations
Seed sources Many (33%) do not know seed source Encourage the establishment of forest seed production units; seed banks;
research on seed storage
Sanitation 5–20% of seedlings infested with diseases and insects Training in management of pests and use of pesticides
Nutrition Most lack knowledge efficient nutrition Training in nutrition management
Species Majority of production consists of four species of pine
and two tropical hardwoods
Use greater diversity of species
Production capacity and
technology
54% of container nurseries require replacement
containers
Produce plants for specific objectives; focus on more efficient nurseries; find
resources to purchase container systems; assign additional resources to
manufacture trays (SEDENA)
Infrastructure pH of 85% of nurseries is moderately high to high; 65%
had a pH 6.0 to 8.5
Replace containers; implement improvements in irrigation practices
Seedling quality 68% of nurseries use only two criteria: height and
diameter
Use other indicators of quality: sturdiness coefficient; shoot/root dry mass ratio
Lifting and transportation 32.8% of seedlings are lost in this stage of operation Improve operations; standardize type of packaging; improve seedling price
contracts and agreements with packaging payment; deliver leaflets to
recipients on seedling care and planting; provide mandatory packaging
workshops for nursery managers
Administration 62% of nurseries have no organizational plan and most
have limited experience in planning
Establish mechanisms to improve process control; utilize outside companies as
consultants
Economic aspects Excess bureaucracy (53%); bonding requirement (30%);
uncertainty in assignment and continuity of contracts
(17%)
Reduce state governments triangulation; provide timely payments to ensure
resources are scheduled in time
Training Deficiencies in different areas Promote regional and statewide workshops to exchange experiences;
development of production manuals; certify nursery managers; organize
state and regional meetings and at least one national meeting
Data from CONAFOR (2008).
Journal of Forestry • July 2015 409
However, the definition of drought may
broadly refer to the following
•
Desiccation of the root plug during
handling and transportation.
•
Desiccation of the root plug at the re-
forestation site before planting.
•
Delayed planting during the rainy
season, which limits root egress and estab-
lishment.
•
Planting outside the rainy season into
dry soil.
•
Seasonal, episodic drought during the
rainy season.
A missing thread is the education of
local communities and foresters to better
understand seedling quality and proper
planning for reforestation programs. This
includes preventing seedlings from desicca-
tion before planting, matching the planting
season to the monsoonal rains (Figure 6)
when soil moisture is highest, and defining a
“target seedling” to match site conditions for
planting.
There has been little work on container
seedling quality of Mexican species based on
field performance trials (e.g., Sa´enz Reyes et
al. 2012); most recommendations are based
on trials in other countries (South and
Mexal 1984, Mexal and Landis 1990,
Birchler et al. 1998, Cibria´n Tovar and Bello
Lara 2000, Dominguez-Lerena et al. 2003).
One of the first steps in defining seedling
quality is to identify the parameters of a con-
tainerized seedling that contribute to high
survival and growth for specific site condi-
tions (i.e., identify the target). This target
seedling must possess morphological, phys-
iological, and chemical attributes that are as-
sociated with superior field performance
(Colombo et al. 2001). Perhaps the best def-
inition of a target seedling is “fitness for pur-
pose” (Wille´n and Sutton 1980).
Recent work has gathered data on mor-
phological attributes (height, diameter, and
sturdiness) and chemical attributes (nutri-
ents) of containerized seedlings in Me´xico
(Ortega et al. 2006, Prieto Ruiz and Sa´enz
Reyes 2011) (Table 3). However, there has
been little work on the physiological quality
of seedlings or work matching quality pa-
rameters with the performance attributes,
survival, and growth (e.g., Mexal et al. 2002,
2009).
If CONAFOR is to achieve President
Pen˜a Nieto’s goal of 60–70% survival (Pen˜a
Nieto 2013) for reforestation activities by
2018, it is critical for all individuals involved
to have a better understanding of seedling
quality, climate, and logistics. Furthermore,
the various entities should coordinate activ-
ities concerning seed source selection, nurs-
ery production, and forest productivity. Ed-
ucation is the possible solution to many of
the observable problems in both the nursery
for producing quality target seedlings and
with reforestation efforts. Providing work-
shops and training opportunities for those
communities that would be involved in
planting is a first step in communicating
proper planting practices, including seedling
handling, planting techniques, aftercare,
and protection. The details of these educa-
tion programs could also include posters and
illustrated guides, especially if language is a
concern (either illiteracy or indigenous lan-
guages).
Future Directions
Forests will continue to play an impor-
tant role in the livelihood of rural commu-
nities in Me´xico as many ejidatarios prefer to
live and work in their local community.
The CFEs managed by the ejidatarios are
a unique global model and unlikely to
change in Me´xico. Consequently, greater in-
volvement at the community level and lead-
ership/administration at the state and fed-
eral levels are needed, not only to mitigate
forest degradation but also to enhance pro-
ductivity and economic viability of the
forest. Productive forests may continue to
Figure 5. Causes of low survival in reforestation programs with 70% polybag production (A)
and 30% polybag production (B) (Bello Lara and Cibria´n Tovar 2000, Alvarez Reyes 2013).
Figure 6. Identification of the outplanting window (after South and Mexal (1984) with
survival data (as a percentage of maximum) by stocktype (Carrillo Anzures 1986) and site
(Mas Porras, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrı´colas y Pecuarias
[INIFAP], Morelia, Michoaca´n, Me´xico, pers. comm., August 1993).
410 Journal of Forestry • July 2015
provide employment, which could reduce
emigration from rural communities (Bray
2005). Whereas these CFEs may be viewed
as “a uniquely Mexican contribution to the
global economy,” they can also be viewed as
a cause of deforestation and greenhouse gas
emissions, especially in tropical forests
(Cairns et al. 2000). Unfortunately, because
timber harvests from CFEs have declined in
the last 30 years, other beneficial uses of for-
ests could also be depleted without improve-
ments in management. The success of CFEs
will probably depend on an integration of
wood products, NWFPs, and environmen-
tal services (e.g., carbon credits). However,
this will require a level of management that
is underpinned by a successful reforestation
program, currently not in evidence in many
communities.
Consolidation of nurseries and im-
provements in technology, training, and
continuing education of both nursery per-
sonnel and local reforestation managers are
needed to ensure sustainable forest systems.
Vester and Navarro-Martínez (2005) re-
ferred to “costly treeplanting” as a negative
component of tropical forest management.
However, to not aggressively reforest and re-
store forestlands to productive end uses for
future generations could also be considered
“costly.” Seed banks (Miller 1999) and seed
rain (Martinez-Garza and Gonzalez-Mon-
tagut 1999) are likely to contain neither the
number of species nor the particular species
in undisturbed forests. Probably ejidatarios
viewed themselves as farmers rather than
foresters, and the forests were simply consid-
ered an exploitable resource. Communities
that viewed forestry as an integral compo-
nent of their lifestyle were more aggressive
about treeplanting and forest management,
even in situations where the members did
not have title to the land (Simmons et al.
2002). Reforestation benefits not only fu-
ture commensurable values of the forests but
also noncommensurable values, including
environmental services. SEMARNAT held
the first National Reforestation Congress in
2000 and should be encouraged to initiate
both national and regional conferences to
strengthen the link between nursery produc-
tion and treeplanting communities. Refores-
tation efforts are critical components of suc-
cessful forest management leading not only
to ecological services including carbon se-
questration, watershed protection, and bio-
diversity but also sustainable futures for in-
digenous communities and balance of trade
within NAFTA (Masera 1995).
Literature Cited
ALDANA BARAJAS, R. 2000. Supervisio´n de
viveros: Resultados de la supervisio´n 2000
[Nursery overview: Results of the 2000 over-
view]. In Proc. Congreso Nacional de Re-
forestacio´n, 2000 Nov. 8 –10, Texcoco, Me´xico.
Resumen 503, Programa Nacional de Re-
forestación, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente,
Recursos Naturales y Pesca, México, D.F. 8 p.
A
NTINORI, C. 2005. Vertical integration in the
community forestry enterprise of Oaxaca. P.
241–272 in The community forests of Mexico.
Managing for sustainable landscapes, Bray,
D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D. Barry (eds.).
The Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
A
NTINORI, C., AND D.B. BRAY. 2005. Commu-
nity forest enterprises as entrepreneurial firms:
Economic and institutional perspectives from
Mexico. World Dev. 33(9):1529–1543.
B
ARBIER, E.B., AND J.C. BURGESS. 2001. The eco-
nomics of tropical deforestation. J. Econ. Surv.
15:413–433.
B
ELLO LARA, A., AND J. CIBRIA
´
N TOVAR. 2000.
Evaluacio´n te´cnica de la reforestacio´n 1998
[Technical evaluation of reforestation: 1998].
In Proc. Congreso Nacional de Reforestacio´n,
2000 Nov. 8–10, Texcoco, Me´xico. Resumen
620, Programa Nacional de Reforestación,
Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Na-
turales y Pesca, México, D.F. 10 p.
B
IRCHLER, T., W.R. ROSE,A.ROYO, AND M. PAR-
DOS. 1998. La planta ideal: Revisio´n del con-
cepto, para´metros definitorios e implement-
acio´n pra´ctica [The ideal plant: Concept
revision, defined parameters and practical im-
plementation]. Invest. Agr. Sist. Recur. For.
7(1&2):109–121.
B
RAY, D.B. 2005. Community forestry in Mex-
ico: Twenty lessons learned and four future
pathways. P. 335–350 in The community forests
of Mexico. Managing for sustainable landscapes,
Bray, D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D. Barry
(eds.). The Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
B
RAY, D.B., L. MERINO-PE
´
REZ, AND D. BARRY.
2005a. Community managed in the strong
sense of the phrase: The community forest en-
terprises of Mexico. P. 3–26 in The community
forests of Mexico. Managing for sustainable land-
scapes, Bray, D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D.
Barry (eds.). The Univ. of Texas Press, Austin,
TX.
B
RAY, D.B., L. MERINO-PE
´
REZ, AND D. BARRY
(EDS.). 2005b. The community forests of Mexico.
Managing for sustainable landscapes. The Univ.
of Texas Press, Austin, TX. 372 p.
CAIRNS, M.A., R. DIRZO, AND F. ZADROGA.
1995. Forests of Mexico. J. For. 93:21–24.
CAIRNS, M.A., P.K. HAGGERTY,R.IVAREZ, B.H.J.
DE JONG, AND I. OLMSTED. 2000. Tropical
Mexico’s recent land-use change: A region’s
contribution to the global carbon cycle. Ecol.
Applic. 10:1426–1441.
CARRILLO ANZURES, F. 1986. E
´
poca y sistema de
plantacio´n, edad de la planta y preparacio´n del
terreno en la regeneracio´n artificial de Pinus
montezumae Lamb., en el Campo Experimental
Forestal, San Juan Tetla, Puebla [Timing and
method of planting, age of seedlings and site prep-
aration for the artificial regeneration of Pinus
montezumae Lamb., in the Campo Experimen-
tal Forestal, San Juan Tetla, Puebla]. Colegio
de Postgraduados, Montecillos, Me´xico. 99 p.
C
ENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL FORESTRY RE-
SEARCH (CIFOR). 2010. Forests, land use, and
climate change assessment for USAID/Mexico.
AID PNADT898.pdf, Prepared for AID by
Center for International Forestry Research,
Bogor, Indonesia. 88 p.
C
HAPELA, F. 2005. Indigenous community forest
management in the Sierra Jua´rez, Oaxaca. P.
91–110 in The community forests of Mexico.
Managing for sustainable landscapes, Bray,
D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D. Barry (eds.).
The Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
CHARNLEY, S. 2005. Industrial plantation forest-
ry: Do local communities benefit? J. Sustain.
For. 21:35–57.
CIBRIA
´
N TOVAR, J., AND A. BELLO LARA. 2000.
Calidad de planta [Seedling quality]. In Proc.
Congreso Nacional de Reforestacio´n, 2000 Nov.
8–10, Texcoco, Me´xico. Resumen 503, Pro-
grama Nacional de Reforestación, Secretaría
de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y
Pesca, México, D.F. 10 p.
C
OLOMBO, S.J., P.H. SAMPSON, C.W.G. TEMPLE-
TON, T.C. MCDONOUGH, P.A. MENES,D.
DEYOE, AND S.C. GROSSNICKLE. 2001. Assess-
Table 3. Target seedling specification for container production.
Species Production (%) Height (H) Diameter (D) Age (mo) H/D
.........(in.) .........
Pinus pseudostrobus 12 8–10 ⱖ5/32 8–9 ⱖ6
Pinus patula 12 10–12 ⱖ5/32 6–7 ⱖ7
Pinus greggii 10 10–12 ⱖ1/8 6–8 ⱖ7
Pinus douglasiana 5 10–12 ⱖ3/16 7–8 ⱖ6
Pinus devoniana
1
9 ⱖ1/4 8–9
Pinus engelmannii
1
4 ⱖ3/16 10–11
Pinus montezumae
1
3 ⱖ1/4 10–11
Cupressus lusitanica 4 12–14 ⱖ5/32 6–7 ⱖ8
Cedrela odorata 7 10–12 ⱖ5/32 4–5 ⱖ7
Tabebuia rosea 3 10–14 ⱖ3/16 4–5 ⱖ7
Other species 30 NA NA NA NA
Data from CONAFOR (2013). NA, not applicable.
1
Species with grass stage.
Journal of Forestry • July 2015 411
ment of nursery stock quality on Ontario. P.
307–323 in Regenerating the Canadian forest:
Principles and practice for Ontario, Wagner,
R.G., and S.J. Colombo (eds.). Fitzhenry and
Whiteside, Markham, ON, Canada.
C
OMISIO
´
N NACIONAL FORESTAL (CONAFOR).
2008. Diagno´stico nacional de los viveros
forestales y de las condiciones fitosanitarias y cali-
dad de planta [National diagnosis of forest nurs-
eries and their phytosanitary conditions and seed-
ling quality]. Reporte Te´cnico, Documento
Interno. Guadalajara, Jalisco, Me´xico. 59 p.
C
OMISIO
´
N NACIONAL FORESTAL (CONAFOR).
2013. Reporte semanal de resultados de incendios
forestales 2012 [Weekly report of forest fires re-
sults 2012]. Available online at www.
cnf.gob.mx:8090/snif/portal/las-demas/
huertos-semilleros; last accessed Jan. 7, 2014.
Comisión Nacional Forestal (CONAFOR).
2015. PRONAFOR (National Forestry Pro-
gram). Available online at www.conafor.
gob.mx/web/apoyos/pronafor/; last accessed
Mar. 18, 2015.
C
OUTURIER, S., J.M. NU
´
N˜EZ, AND M. KOLB.
2012. Measuring tropical deforestation with
error margins: A method for REDD monitor-
ing in south-eastern Mexico. P. 269–296 in
Tropical forests, Sudarshana, P., M. Nag-
eswara-Rao, and J.R. Soneji (eds.). InTech.
Available online at www.intechopen.com/
jbooks/tropical-forests/measuring-tropical-
deforestation-with-error-margins-a-method-
for-redd-monitoring-in-south-eastern-me; last
accessed May 23, 2013.
DE QUEVEDO, M.A. 1935. A six-year forestry plan
for Mexico. J. For. 33:146–154.
DOMINGUEZ-LERENA, S., N. HERRERO SIERRA,I.
C
ARRASCO MANZANO,L.OCANA BUENO,J.
PENUELAS RUBIA, AND J.G. MEXAL. 2003. Con-
tainer characteristics influence Pinus pinea
seedling development in the nursery and field.
For. Ecol. Manage. 221:63–71.
DURA
´
N, E., D.B. BRAN,A.VELA
´
ZQUEZ, AND A.
LARRAZA
´
BAL. 2011. Multi-scale forest gover-
nance, deforestation, and violence in two re-
gions of Guerrero, Mexico. World Dev. 39(4):
611–619.
ELLIS, E.A., K.A. KAINER, J.A. SIERRA HUELSZ,P.
N
EGREROS-CASTILLO, AND M. DI GIANO.
2014. Community-based forest management
in Quintana Roo, Mexico. P. 131–151 in For-
ests under pressure—Local responses to global is-
sues, Katila, P., G. Galloway, W. de Jong, P.
Pacheco, and G. Mery (eds.). International
Union of Forest Research Organizations, Vi-
enna, Austria.
FARJON, A., J.A. PEREZ DE LA ROSA, AND B.T.
STYLES. 1997. Guía de campo de los pinos de
Me´xico y Ame´rica Central. [Field guide to the
pines of Mexico and Central America]. The
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Oxford Univer-
sity, Oxford, UK. 151 p.
F
OOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS (FAO). 1997. State of the
World’s Forests—North America. Available
online at www.fao.org/docrep/w4345e/
w4345e00.htm; last accessed June 24, 2013.
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS (FAO). 2003a. Woodfuels
integrated supply/demand overview mapping
WISDOM: A methodological approach for assess-
ing woodfuel sustainability and supporting wood
energy planning. Available online at www.
fao.org/docrep/005/y4719e/y4719e00.htm;
last accessed May 23, 2013.
F
OOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS (FAO). 2003b. Alternatives
for improving reforestation in Me´xico,Sa´enz-
Romero, C. (ed.). Available online at www.
fao.org/docrep/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/
0381-B4.HTM#P21_251; last accessed May
4, 2014.
F
OOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS (FAO). 2006. Global forest
resources assessment 2005. Progress towards sus-
tainable forest management. FAO For. Pap.
147. 320 p. Available online at ftp://ftp.fao.
org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf;
last accessed June 19, 2013.
F
OOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE
UNITED NATIONS (FAO). 2011. State of the
World’s Forests—2011. Available online at
www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2000e/i2000e.pdf;
last accessed June 19, 2013.
GUERRERO, M.T., F. DE VILLA,M.KELLY,C.
R
EED, AND B. VEGTER. 2011. The forestry in-
dustry in the State of Chihuahua: Economic, eco-
logical and social impacts post-NAFTA. The
Texas Center for Policy Studies, Austin, TX.
54 p.
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA,GEOGRAFÍA Y
INFORMA
´
TICA. 1996. Anuario estadístico de los Es-
tados Unidos Mexicanos [Annual statistics of the
United States of Mexico]. Instituto Nacional de
Estadística, Geografía y Informa´tica, Aguascali-
entes, Ags., Me´xico. 790 p.
I
NSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA,GEOGRAFÍA Y
INFORMA
´
TICA. 2010. Anuario estadístico de los
Estados Unidos Mexicanos. [Annual statistics of
the United States of Mexico]. Instituto Nacional
de Estadística, Geografía y Informa´tica, Aguas-
calientes, Ags., Me´xico, Available online at
www.inegi.org.mx/; last accessed May 12,
2013.
KLOOSTER, D. 1999. Community-based forestry
in Mexico: Can it reverse processes of degrada-
tion? Land Degrad. Dev. 10(4):365–381.
M
ALDONADO-BENITEZ, K.R., A. ALDRETE,J.
L
O
´
PEZ-UPTON,H.VAQUERA-HUERTA, AND
V.M. CETINA-ALCALA. 2011. Nursery produc-
tion of Pinus greggii Engelm. in mixtures of
substrate with hydrogel and irrigation levels.
Agrociencia 45:389–398.
MARTINEZ-GARZA, C., AND R. GONZALEZ-MON-
TAGUT. 1999. Seed rain from forest fragments
into tropical pastures in Los Tuxtlas, Mexico.
Plant Ecol. 145(2):255–265.
MAS, J.-F., A. VELA
´
ZQUEZ, AND S. COUTURIER.
2009. La evaluacio´n de los cambios de cober-
tura/uso del suelo en la Repu´blica Mexicana
[The evaluation of changes in cover/ soil use in
the Republic of Mexico]. Invest. Ambient. 1(1):
23–39. Available online at www2.inecc.gob.
mx/publicaciones/gacetas/604/evaluacion.
pdf; last accessed May 23, 2013.
M
ASERA, O.R. 1995. Carbon mitigation scenar-
ios for Mexican forests: Methodological
considerations and results. Interciencia 20(6):
388–395. Available online at www.
interciencia.org/v20_06/art12/; last accessed
Mar. 18, 2015.
M
ASERA, O. 1996. Uso y Conservacio´n de Energía
en el Sector Rural: El caso de la len˜a [Use and
conservation of energy in the rural sector: The case
of fuelwood]. Documentos de Trabajo No. 21,
Grupo Interdisciplinario de Tecnología Rural
Apropiada (GIRA A.C.), Pa´tzcuaro, Me´xico.
M
ENDOZA, E., AND R. DIRZO. 1999. Deforesta-
tion in Lacandonia (southeast Mexico): Evi-
dence for the declaration of the northernmost
tropical hot-spot. Biodivers. Conserv. 8(12):
1621–1641.
M
ERINO-PE
´
REZ, L., AND G. SEGURA-WARN-
HOLTZ. 2005. Forest and conservation policies
and their impact on forest communities in
Mexico. P. 49–70 in The community forests of
Mexico. Managing for sustainable landscapes,
Bray, D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D. Barry
(eds.). The Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
M
EXAL, J.G., R.A. CUEVAS RANGEL, AND T.D.
LANDIS. 2009. Reforestation success in Central
Mexico: Factors determining survival and
early growth. Tree Planters’ Notes 53:16–22.
MEXAL, J.G., R.A. CUEVAS RANGEL,P.NEGRE-
ROS-CASTILLO, AND C. PARAGUIRRE LEZAMA.
2002. Nursery production practices affect sur-
vival and growth of tropical hardwoods in
Quintana Roo, Mexico. For. Ecol. Manage.
168(1–3):125–133.
MEXAL, J.G., AND T.L. LANDIS. 1990. The target
seedling concept—Height and diameter. P.
17–36 in Target seedling symposium: Proc.,
Combined meeting of the Western Forest Nursery
Associations, 1990 August 13–17; Roseburg,
OR. USDA For. Serv., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-
200, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Ex-
periment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
MILLER, P.M. 1999. Effects of deforestation on
seed banks in a tropical deciduous forest of
western Mexico. J. Trop. Ecol. 16(2):179–
188.
O
RTEGA, L.U., A.K. DANTA DE OLIVEIRA,A.HE-
VIA CABAL,E.A´LVAREZ RO
´
N, AND J. MAJADA
GUIJO. 2006. Control de calidad de planta for-
estal [Control of forest seedling quality]. Pro-
grama Forestal Revista Tecnología Agroali-
mentaria 2
o
e´poca, No. 3. 3 p. Available online
at www.serida.org/publicacionesdetalle.php?id⫽
01521; last accessed May 14, 2013.
P
ALACIO-PRIETO, J.L., G. BOCCO,A.VELA
´
ZQUES,
J.-F. MAS,F.TAKAKI-TAKAKI,A.VICTORIA,L.
LUNA-GONZA
´
LEZ, ET AL. 2000. La condicio´n
actual de los recursos forestales in Me´xico: Re-
sultados del inventario Forestal Nacional 2000
[The actual condition of forest resources in
Mexico: Results of the 2000 National Forest
Inventory]. Invest. Geograf. 43:183–203.
PEÑA NIETO, E. 2013. Conmemoracio´n del Día del
A
´
rbol [Commemoration of the Day of the Tree].
Available online at www.presidencia.gob.mx/
articulos-prensa/conmemoracion-del-dia-del-
arbol/; last accessed July 11, 2104.
P
ERRY, J.P. JR. 1991. The pines of Mexico and Cen-
tral America. Timber Press, Portland, OR.
231 p.
PRIETO RUIZ, J.A., AND J.T. SA
´
ENZ REYES
(COMPS.). 2011. Indicadores de calidad de
412 Journal of Forestry • July 2015
planta en viveros forestales de la Sierra Madre
Occidental [Seedling quality indicators in forest
nurseries of the Sierra Madra Occidental moun-
tains]. Tech. Bull. No. 3, INIFAP Centro de
Investigacio´n Regional Norte Centro, Dur-
ango, Dgo. 210 p.
R
EYES-REYES, J., A. ALDRETE, V.M. CETINA-AL-
CALA
´
, AND J. LO
´
PEZ-UPTON. 2005. Produccio´n
de pla´ntulas de Pinus pseudostrobus var. apul-
censis en sustratos a base de aserrín [Pinus pseu-
dostrobus var. apulcensis seedling production in
sawdust-based substrates]. Rev. Chapingo Ser.
Cien. For. Ambiente 11(2):105–110.
R
OMA
´
N-CUESTA, R.M., J. RETANA, AND M. GRA-
CIA. 2004. Fire trends in tropical Mexico. J.
For. 102:26–34.
R
ZEDOWSKI, J. 1988. Vegetacio´n de Me´xico [Vege-
tation of Mexico]. Editorial Limusa, S.A., Mex-
ico City, Mexico. 432 p.
S
A
´
ENZ REYES, J.T., H.J. MUN˜OZ-FLOREZ, J.A.
P
RIETO-RUIZ,A.RUEDA-SANCHEZ, AND M.
A
LARCO
´
N-BUSTAMONTE. 2012. Importancia
de las plantaciones forestales [Importance of
forest plantations]. In Evaluacio´n de plantacio-
nes forestales en la Sierra Madre Occidental. Li-
bro Te´cnico No. 5, Campo Experimental
Valle del Guadiana, Centro de Investigacio´n
Regional Norte Centro, INIFAP, Durango,
Dgo. 220 p.
S
A
´
NCHEZ-CO
´
RDOVA, T., A. ALDRETE, V.M.
C
ETINA-ALCALA, AND J. LO
´
PEZ-UPTON. 2008.
Caracterizacio´n de medios de crecimiento
compuestos por corteza de pino y aserrin
[Characterization of growing media composed
of pine bark and sawdust]. Madera Bosques 14:
41–49.
SECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS
NATURALES (SEMARNAT). 2006. El Informe
de la Situacio´n del Medio Ambiente en Me´xico
2005, el Compendio de Estadísticas Ambientales
2005 [Environmental Situation Report of Mex-
ico 2005, a compendium of environmental sta-
tistics 2005]. Available online at app1.
semarnat.gob.mx/dgeia/informe_resumen/
05_aprovechamiento/cap5.html; last accessed
July 17, 2013.
SECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS
NATURALES (SEMARNAT). 2011a. Anuario es-
tadístico de la produccio´n forestal 2011. [Annual
statistics of forest production 2011]. Available
online at Web2.semarnat.gob.mx/temas/
gestionambiental/forestal/suelos/Anuarios/
ANUARIO_2011.pdf; last accessed Jan. 7,
2013.
S
ECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS
NATURALES (SEMARNAT). 2011b. Produc-
cio´n de plantas para reforestacio´n (1993–2009).
[Seedling production for reforestation (1993–
2009)]. Available online at aplicaciones.
semarnat.gob.mx/estadisticas/compendio2010/
archivos/01_rforestales/d3_Rforesta09_05.pdf;
last accessed May 14, 2013.
S
ECRETARÍA DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y RECURSOS
NATURALES (SEMARNAT). 2011c. Superficie
reforestada (1993–2009) [Areas reforested
(1993–2009)]. Available online at
aplicaciones.semarnat.gob.mx/estadisticas/
compendio2010/archivos/01_rforestales/
d3_Rforesta09_06.pdf; last accessed May 14,
2013.
S
IMMONS, C.S., R.T. WALKER, AND C.H. WOOD.
2002. Tree planting by small producers in the
tropics: A comparative study of Brazil and
Panama. Agrofor. Sys. 56:89–105.
S
OUTH, D.B., AND J.G. MEXAL. 1984. Growing
the “best” seedling for reforestation success. Dept.
Ser. No. 12, Alabama Agricultural Experimen-
tal Station Forestry, Auburn Univ., Auburn,
AL. 11 p.
S
TANTURF, J.A., R.C. KELLISON, F.S. BROERMAN,
AND S.B. JONES. 2003. Productivity of south-
ern pine plantations: Where are we and how
did we get here? J. For. 101:26–31.
T
AYLOR, P.L. 2005. New organizational strat-
egies in community forestry in Durango,
Mexico. P. 125–150 in The community for-
ests of Mexico. Managing for sustainable land-
scapes, Bray, D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D.
Barry (eds.). The Univ. of Texas Press, Aus-
tin, TX.
T
ORRES-ROJO, J.M., A. GUEVARA-SANGINE
´
S, AND
D.B. BRAY. 2005. The managerial economics
of sustainable community forestry in Mexico:
A case study of El Balco´n, Te´cpan, Guerrero.
P. 273–304 in The community forests of Mexico.
Managing for sustainable landscapes, Bray,
D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D. Barry (eds.).
The Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
U
NIVERSIDAD AUTO
´
NOMA CHAPINGO-CONAFOR.
2012. Evaluacio´n complementaria del PRO-
COREF. Ejercicio fiscal 2011.[Further evalua-
tion of PROCOREF (Program of Conservation
and Restoration of Forest Ecosystems). Fiscal year
2011]. Available online at www.cnf.gob.mx:
8090/snif/portal/organizaciones; last accessed
Mar. 18, 2015.
V
ENATOR, C.R., L.H. LEIGEL, AND J.P. BARNETT.
1985. Bareroot versus container production in
pines in the American tropics. P. 72– 84 in
Proc., International symposium on nursery man-
agement practices for the southern pines, 1985
August 4–9, Montgomery, AL, South, D.B.
(ed.). Alabama Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, Auburn Univ., Auburn, AL.
V
ESTER, H.F.M., AND M.A. NAVARRO-MARTÍNEZ
2005. Ecological issues in community tropical
forest management in Quintana Roo, Mexico.
P. 183–214 in The community forests of Mexico.
Managing for sustainable landscapes, Bray,
D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and D. Barry (eds.).
The Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, TX.
W
ILLE
´
N, P., AND R.F. SUTTON. 1980. Evaluation
of stock after planting. N.Z. J. For. Sci. 10:
297–299.
WILSHUSEN, P.R. 2005. Community adaptation
or collective breakdown? The emergence of
“work groups” in two forestry ejidos in Quin-
tana Roo, Mexico. P. 151–182 in The commu-
nity forests of Mexico. Managing for sustainable
landscapes, Bray, D.B., L. Merino-Pe´rez, and
D. Barry (eds.). The Univ. of Texas Press, Aus-
tin, TX.
Z
ABIN, C. 1998. Free markets and forests of Mex-
ico: Community-based forestry in the era of
neoliberal reform. P. 401–425 in The transfor-
mation of rural Mexico: Reforming the ejido sec-
tor, Cornelius, W.A., and D. Myhre (eds.).
Center for US–Mexican Studies, Univ. of Cal-
ifornia, San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Journal of Forestry • July 2015 413
