中国农业科技导报 ›› 2023, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (6): 174-180.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0780
庞喆,王启龙,李娟
收稿日期:
2021-09-06
接受日期:
2022-01-18
出版日期:
2023-06-15
发布日期:
2023-07-28
通讯作者:
王启龙
基金资助:
PANG Zhe, WANG Qilong, LI Juan
Received:
2021-09-06
Accepted:
2022-01-18
Online:
2023-06-15
Published:
2023-07-28
Contact:
Qilong WANG
摘要:
为探究不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地的改良效果,采用田间试验和室内分析相结合的方法,比较了3种土壤改良剂(脱硫石膏、“金阜丰”和腐殖酸)对土壤理化性质、水稻产量及经济效益的影响。结果表明,3种土壤改良剂均可有效降低土壤容重、改善土壤物理性质,降低土壤酸碱度。其中,腐殖酸可显著降低表层土壤含盐量;“金阜丰”土壤改良剂和腐殖酸对土壤有机质、全氮含量的影响达到显著水平,对速效钾、有效磷含量影响不显著;脱硫石膏对土壤速效钾含量的影响达到显著水平,对有机质、全氮、有效磷含量影响不显著。此外,施加土壤改良剂可以显著提升水稻千粒重和产量,与对照相比千粒重和产量分别增加10.19%~13.59%和13.54%~27.95%,其中,施加腐殖酸改良剂处理的水稻千粒重和产量最大,分别达到23.4 g和7 380 kg·hm-2;通过经济效益分析发现,施加改良剂可以显著提升水稻产值和纯利润,其中,施加腐殖酸处理获得了最大的产值、纯利润和产投比,综合考虑稻米质量、水稻产量和经济效益,建议优先选用腐殖酸土壤改良剂改良陕北低洼盐碱地。
中图分类号:
庞喆, 王启龙, 李娟. 不同土壤改良剂对陕北低洼盐碱地土壤理化性质及水稻产量和经济效益的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 174-180.
PANG Zhe, WANG Qilong, LI Juan. Effects of Different Soil Amendments on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties, Rice Yield and Economic Benefits in Low-lying Saline Alkali Land in Northern Shaanxi[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2023, 25(6): 174-180.
土层 Soil layer/cm | pH | 水溶性盐总量 Salt content/ (g ·kg-1) | 容重Bulk density/ (g·cm-3) | 有机质 Organic matter/ (g·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen/% | 有效磷 Available phosphorus/ (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium/ (mg·kg-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 9.03±0.11 | 2.97±0.04 | 1.51±0.08 | 2.47±0.10 | 0.26±0.05 | 0.26±0.03 | 92.77±3.01 |
20—40 | 9.10±0.05 | 2.10±0.05 | 1.53±0.05 | 2.28±0.06 | 0.43±0.03 | 0.33±0.05 | 85.02±2.54 |
40—60 | 9.08±0.11 | 2.22±0.07 | 1.55±0.10 | 4.47±0.04 | 0.37±0.04 | 0.35±0.04 | 81.75±2.13 |
表1 试验地土壤基本理化性质
Table 1 Basic soil physical and chemical properties of the test site
土层 Soil layer/cm | pH | 水溶性盐总量 Salt content/ (g ·kg-1) | 容重Bulk density/ (g·cm-3) | 有机质 Organic matter/ (g·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen/% | 有效磷 Available phosphorus/ (mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium/ (mg·kg-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0—20 | 9.03±0.11 | 2.97±0.04 | 1.51±0.08 | 2.47±0.10 | 0.26±0.05 | 0.26±0.03 | 92.77±3.01 |
20—40 | 9.10±0.05 | 2.10±0.05 | 1.53±0.05 | 2.28±0.06 | 0.43±0.03 | 0.33±0.05 | 85.02±2.54 |
40—60 | 9.08±0.11 | 2.22±0.07 | 1.55±0.10 | 4.47±0.04 | 0.37±0.04 | 0.35±0.04 | 81.75±2.13 |
图1 不同土壤改良剂条件下0—60 cm土层土壤含盐量注:同一土层中不同小写字母表示不同处理间在P<0.05水平差异显著。
Fig. 1 Soil salt content in 0—60 cm soil layer under different soil amendmentsNote:Different lowercase letters in same soil layer indicate significant differences between treatments at P<0.05 level.
图2 不同土壤改良剂条件下0—60 cm土层土壤pH注:同一土层中不同小写字母表示不同处理间在P<0.05水平差异显著。
Fig. 2 Soil pH of 0—60 cm soil layer under different soil amendmentsNote:Different lowercase letters in same soil layer indicate significant differences between treatments at P<0.05 level.
处理 Treatment | 土层 Layer | ||
---|---|---|---|
0—20 cm | 20—40 cm | 40—60 cm | |
对照 CK | 1.49±0.04 a | 1.53±0.03 a | 1.52±0.06 a |
脱硫石膏 FGD | 1.45±0.11 b | 1.46±0.05 b | 1.51±0.04 a |
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC | 1.42±0.05 c | 1.43±0.02 c | 1.52±0.02 a |
腐殖酸 HA | 1.41±0.03 c | 1.42±0.09 c | 1.50±0.05 a |
表2 不同土壤改良剂条件下0—60 cm土层土壤容重 (g·cm-3)
Table 2 Soil bulk density of 0—60 cm soil layer under different soil amendments
处理 Treatment | 土层 Layer | ||
---|---|---|---|
0—20 cm | 20—40 cm | 40—60 cm | |
对照 CK | 1.49±0.04 a | 1.53±0.03 a | 1.52±0.06 a |
脱硫石膏 FGD | 1.45±0.11 b | 1.46±0.05 b | 1.51±0.04 a |
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC | 1.42±0.05 c | 1.43±0.02 c | 1.52±0.02 a |
腐殖酸 HA | 1.41±0.03 c | 1.42±0.09 c | 1.50±0.05 a |
处理 Treatment | 土层 Layer/cm | 有机质 Organic matter/ (g·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen/% | 有效磷 Available phosphorus/(mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium/ (mg·kg-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照 CK | 0—20 | 8.72±0.96 a | 0.72±0.24 a | 8.6±1.54 a | 121±3.68 a |
20—40 | 8.34±1.06 b | 0.71±0.32 b | 8.5±1.74 a | 106±4.87 b | |
40—60 | 7.61±0.55 c | 0.73±0.33 a | 7.6±1.56 b | 86±5.74 c | |
脱硫石膏 FGD | 0—20 | 8.83±0.96 a | 0.84±0.27 a | 8.5±1.19 a | 138±6.77 a |
20—40 | 8.41±0.84 ab | 0.71±0.21 b | 8.3±1.62 b | 115±4.59 b | |
40—60 | 7.85±1.21 b | 0.66±0.26 c | 8.1±1.54 c | 85±5.78 c | |
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC | 0—20 | 11.8±0.95 a | 0.93±0.32 a | 8.4±2.02 a | 124±9.61 a |
20—40 | 9.58±1.07 b | 0.82±0.31 ab | 6.2±1.26 b | 105±6.45 b | |
40—60 | 8.62±1.36 c | 0.81±0.24 b | 6.8±1.30 b | 83±5.64 c | |
腐殖酸 HA | 0—20 | 11.3±1.08 a | 1.13±0.41 a | 8.5±1.68 a | 113±8.35 a |
20—40 | 9.37±1.14 b | 0.95±0.38 b | 8.1±1.69 ab | 106±7.67 b | |
40—60 | 8.35±1.01 b | 0.84±0.42 c | 7.5±1.58 b | 92±8.21 c |
表3 不同土壤改良剂条件下0—60 cm土层土壤养分
Table 3 Soil nutrients in 0—60 cm soil layer under different soil amendments
处理 Treatment | 土层 Layer/cm | 有机质 Organic matter/ (g·kg-1) | 全氮 Total nitrogen/% | 有效磷 Available phosphorus/(mg·kg-1) | 速效钾 Available potassium/ (mg·kg-1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照 CK | 0—20 | 8.72±0.96 a | 0.72±0.24 a | 8.6±1.54 a | 121±3.68 a |
20—40 | 8.34±1.06 b | 0.71±0.32 b | 8.5±1.74 a | 106±4.87 b | |
40—60 | 7.61±0.55 c | 0.73±0.33 a | 7.6±1.56 b | 86±5.74 c | |
脱硫石膏 FGD | 0—20 | 8.83±0.96 a | 0.84±0.27 a | 8.5±1.19 a | 138±6.77 a |
20—40 | 8.41±0.84 ab | 0.71±0.21 b | 8.3±1.62 b | 115±4.59 b | |
40—60 | 7.85±1.21 b | 0.66±0.26 c | 8.1±1.54 c | 85±5.78 c | |
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC | 0—20 | 11.8±0.95 a | 0.93±0.32 a | 8.4±2.02 a | 124±9.61 a |
20—40 | 9.58±1.07 b | 0.82±0.31 ab | 6.2±1.26 b | 105±6.45 b | |
40—60 | 8.62±1.36 c | 0.81±0.24 b | 6.8±1.30 b | 83±5.64 c | |
腐殖酸 HA | 0—20 | 11.3±1.08 a | 1.13±0.41 a | 8.5±1.68 a | 113±8.35 a |
20—40 | 9.37±1.14 b | 0.95±0.38 b | 8.1±1.69 ab | 106±7.67 b | |
40—60 | 8.35±1.01 b | 0.84±0.42 c | 7.5±1.58 b | 92±8.21 c |
处理 Treatment | 千粒重 1 000 grain weight/g | 产量Yield (kg·hm-2) | 产值/(元·hm-2)Output value/ (yuan·hm-2) | 投入/(元·hm-2)Investment/ (yuan·hm-2) | 纯利润/(元·hm-2) Net profit/ (yuan·hm-2) | 产投比 Production investment ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照 CK | 20.6 | 4 076 | 14 266.0 | — | — | — |
脱硫石膏 FGD | 22.7 | 6 450 | 22 575.0 | 6 000 | 2 309.0 | 1.38 |
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC | 23.1 | 7 215 | 25 252.5 | 5 400 | 5 586.5 | 2.03 |
腐殖酸 HA | 23.4 | 7 380 | 25 830.0 | 5 000 | 6 564.0 | 2.31 |
表4 不同土壤改良剂下陕北低洼盐碱地水稻的产量及经济效益
Table 4 Rice yield and economic benefits in low-lying saline alkali land in Northern Shaanxi under different soil amendments
处理 Treatment | 千粒重 1 000 grain weight/g | 产量Yield (kg·hm-2) | 产值/(元·hm-2)Output value/ (yuan·hm-2) | 投入/(元·hm-2)Investment/ (yuan·hm-2) | 纯利润/(元·hm-2) Net profit/ (yuan·hm-2) | 产投比 Production investment ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
对照 CK | 20.6 | 4 076 | 14 266.0 | — | — | — |
脱硫石膏 FGD | 22.7 | 6 450 | 22 575.0 | 6 000 | 2 309.0 | 1.38 |
“金阜丰”土壤改良剂 SC | 23.1 | 7 215 | 25 252.5 | 5 400 | 5 586.5 | 2.03 |
腐殖酸 HA | 23.4 | 7 380 | 25 830.0 | 5 000 | 6 564.0 | 2.31 |
1 | 杨阳.盐碱地中国潜在的耕地资源[J].中国农村科技,2018(11):8-13. |
YANG Y. Saline alkali land potential cultivated land resources in China [J]. China Rural Sci. Technol., 2018(11):8-13. | |
2 | 宁松瑞,韩霁昌,郝起礼,等.新增耕地土壤盐渍化调查及改良措施分析[J]. 北方园艺, 2017(8): 172-178. |
NING S R, HAN J C, HAO Q L, et al.. Survey and discuss of saline-alkali new farmland and soil improvement measures [J]. Northern Hortic., 2017(8):172-178. | |
3 | STAMFORD N P, SILVA A J N, FREITAS A D S, et al.. Effect of sulphur inoculated with Thiobacillus on soil salinity and growth of tropical tree legumes [J]. Bioresour. Technol., 2002, 81(1): 53-59. |
4 | BROWN T T, KOENIG R T, HUGGINS D R, et al.. Lime effects on soil acidity, crop yield, and aluminum chemistry in direct-seeded cropping systems [J]. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 2008, 72(3): 634-640. |
5 | 周道玮, 田雨, 王敏玲, 等. 覆沙改良科尔沁沙地-松辽平原交错区盐碱地与造田技术研究[J]. 自然资源学报, 2011,26(6): 910-918. |
ZHOU D W, TIAN Y, WANG M L, et al.. Research on "sand-covered reclaimed crop land" of alkali-saline soil [J]. J. Nat. Resour., 2011,26(6): 910-918. | |
6 | 肖国举, 秦萍, 罗成科, 等. 犁翻与旋耕施用脱硫石膏对改良碱化土壤的效果研究[J]. 生态环境学报, 2010, 19(2): 433-437. |
XIAO G J, QIN P, LUO C K, et al.. Study on effects of plowing and rotary tillage on improved solonetzic soil with desulfurized gypsum [J]. Ecol. Environ. Sci., 2010, 19(2): 433-437. | |
7 | 郑普山, 郝保平, 冯悦晨, 等. 不同盐碱地改良剂对土壤理化性质、紫花苜蓿生长及产量的影响[J]. 中国生态农业学报, 2012, 20(9): 1216-1221. |
ZHENG P S, HAO B P, FENG Y C, et al.. Effects of different saline-alkali land amendments on soil physicochemical properties and alfalfa growth and yield [J]. Chin. J. Eco-Agric, 2013, 20(9):1216-1221. | |
8 | 姜增明,费云鹏,陈佳, 等.土壤调理剂在盐碱地改良中的作用[J].北方园艺,2014(20):174-177. |
JIANG Z M, FEI Y P, CHEN J, et al.. Effect of soil conditioners on modifying saline-alkali soil [J]. Northern Hortic.,2014(20):174-177. | |
9 | 吴志强,蔡书春,伍昀, 等.不同土壤改良剂在水稻上的应用效果[J].中国农技推广,2021,37(2):69-71. |
10 | 王红,张淑辉,彭福田, 等.不同土壤改良剂对土壤理化性质、微生物及桃植株生长的影响[J].山东农业科学,2020,52(12):59-65, 70. |
WANG H, ZHANG S H, PENG F T, et al.. Effects of different soil amendments on soil properties, microorganisms and peach plant growth [J]. Shandong Agric. Sci.,2020,52(12):59-65, 70. | |
11 | 舒锟,曹源,王波, 等.土壤调理剂对陕北盐碱地土体化学性质及水稻生长的影响[J].水土保持通报,2020,40(6):175-180. |
SHU K, CAO Y, WANG B, et al.. Effects of conditioner on soil chemical properties and rice growth in saline alkali soil of Northern Shaanxi [J]. Bull. Soil Water Conserv.,2020,40(6):175-180. | |
12 | 王启龙,卢楠,魏样.不同改良措施对定边盐碱地土壤理化性质、黑麦草生长及产量的影响[J].江苏农业科学,2019,47(11):282-286. |
WANG Q L, LU N, WEI Y. Effects of different improvement measures on soil physicochemical properties and ryegrass growth and yield in Dingbian [J]. Jiangsu Agric. Sci.,2019,47(11):282-286. | |
13 | 于晓东,郭新送,陈士更, 等.腐殖酸土壤调理剂对黄河三角洲盐碱土化学性状及小麦产量的影响[J].农学学报,2020,10(11):25-31. |
YU X D, GUO X S, CHEN S G, et al.. Effects of humic acid soil conditioner on chemical properties and wheat yield of saline alkali soil in the Yellow River Delta [J]. J. Agric.,2020,10(11):25-31. | |
14 | 黄艳飞,陈君梅,辛亚宁, 等.石膏对苏打盐碱土壤理化性质的影响[J].中国农业科技导报,2021,23(11):139-146. |
HUANG Y F, CHEN J M, XIN Y N, et al.. Effects of gypsum application on soil physical and chemical properties of soda saline-alkali soil [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2021,23(11):139-146. | |
15 | 何振嘉,范王涛,杜宜春, 等.基于土体有机重构的水肥耦合对土壤理化性质和水稻产量的影响[J].中国农业科技导报,2022,24(3):176-185. |
HE Z J, FAN W T, DU Y C, et al.. Effects of water and fertilizer coupling on the physical and chemical properties of rice soil and yield based on soil organic reconstruction [J]. J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2022,24(3):176-185. | |
16 | 韩剑宏,孙一博,张连科, 等.生物炭与腐殖酸配施对盐碱土理化性质的影响[J].干旱地区农业研究,2020,38(6):121-127. |
HAN J H, SUN Y B, ZHANG L K, et al.. Effect of biochar and humic acid on physical and chemical properties of saline-alkali soil [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas,2020,38(6):121-127. | |
17 | HÉNAULT C, BOURENNANE H, AYZAC A, et al.. Management of soil pH promotes nitrous oxide reduction and thus mitigates soil emissions of this greenhouse gas [J]. Sci. Rep., 2019, 9(1):12-17. |
18 | HAJIBOLAND R, CHERAGHVAREH L, POSCHENRIEDER C. Improvement of drought tolerance in tobacco (Nicotiana rustica L.) plants by silicon [J]. J. Plant Nutr., 2017,40(12):1661-1676. |
19 | 李常亮, 张富仓. 保水剂与氮肥混施对土壤持水特性的影响[J]. 干旱地区农业研究, 2010, 28(2): 172-176. |
LI C L, ZHANG F C. Effects of super absorbent polymer application to soil mixed with nitrogenous fertilizer on soil water retention properties [J]. Agric. Res. Arid Areas,2010, 28(2): 172-176. | |
20 | 周阳. 脱硫石膏与腐殖酸改良盐碱土效果研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2016. |
ZHOU Y. Research on effects of desulfurization gypsum and humic acid on saline soil improvement [D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2016. | |
21 | 皮婧婧,肖兰,赵硕祎, 等.腐殖酸辅助解盐促生菌改良克拉玛依盐碱地土壤技术[J].浙江农业科学,2021,62(3):600-602, 607. |
PI J J, XIAO L, ZHAO S Y, et al.. Technology of improving Karamay saline alkali soil by humic acid assisted salt hydrolysis and growth promoting bacteria [J]. Zhejiang Agric. Sci.,2021,62(3):600-602, 607. | |
22 | 王燕. 不同改良措施对盐渍化草甸土改良效果研究[D].呼和浩特:内蒙古农业大学,2016. |
WANG Y. Improvement effect of different improvement measures on the salinized meadow soil [D]. Hohhot: Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, 2016. | |
23 | 谢仕祺,林正全,陈玉蓝, 等.不同土壤调理剂对植烟土壤养分及细菌群落的影响[J].河南农业大学学报,2021,55(3):523-530. |
XIE S Q, LIN Z Q, CHEN Y L, et al.. Effects of different soil conditioners on soil nutrients and bacterial communities in tobacco soil [J]. J. Henan Agric. Univ.,2021,55(3):523-530. | |
24 | 王立志, 陈明昌, 张强, 等. 脱硫石膏及改良盐碱地效果研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2011, 27(20): 241-245. |
WANG L Z, CHEN M C, ZHANG Q, et al.. Effects of desulfurised gypsum form coal power station on improvement of saline-alkali soil [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2011, 27(20): 241-245. | |
25 | 张玉凤,林海涛,王江涛, 等.盐碱土壤调理剂对玉米生长及土壤的改良效果[J].中国土壤与肥料,2017(1):134-138. |
ZHANG Y F, LIN H T, WANG J T, et al.. Effects of saline-alkaline soil conditioner on growth of maize and improvement of soil [J]. Soil Fert. Sci. China, 2017(1):134-138. |
[1] | 张盼盼, 李川, 张美微, 赵霞, 牛军, 乔江方. 氮肥减施下添加硝化抑制剂对夏玉米氮素累积转运和产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(6): 181-189. |
[2] | 陈琛, 石柯, 朱长伟, 姜桂英, 罗澜, 孟威威, 刘芳, 申凤敏, 刘世亮. 种植密度和施氮量对豫北潮土区小麦光合特性和产量及土壤氮素的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(5): 24-33. |
[3] | 可艳军, 张雨萌, 郭艳杰, 张丽娟, 张子涛, 吉艳芝. 生物有机肥配合深松对农田土壤肥力和作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 157-166. |
[4] | 孙正冉, 张翠萍, 张晋丽, 吴昊, 刘秀艳, 王振凯, 杨玉珍, 贺道华. 喷施化学打顶剂对关中棉区棉花植株生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 167-177. |
[5] | 赵文军, 杨继周, 尹梅, 陈检锋, 薛开政, 胡保文, 付利波, 王伟, 王志远, 杨艳鲜, 陈华. 绿肥模式下减量施氮对烤烟产量与品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 189-196. |
[6] | 孟璐, 范敬文, 赛欣娱, 曾路生, 宋祥云, 崔德杰. 石灰对苹果园土壤改良和植株生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 197-204. |
[7] | 王向东, 宋玥, 马艳芝. 不同生姜品种的品质比较与综合评价[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(4): 56-66. |
[8] | 杨玲, 张富仓, 孙鑫, 张少辉, 王海东, ABDELGHANY Ahmed Elsayed, 陈占飞, 方玉川. 生物炭和滴灌量对陕北榆林沙土性质和马铃薯生长的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(3): 221-233. |
[9] | 郑云珠, 孙树臣. 秸秆生物炭和秸秆对麦玉轮作系统土壤养分及作物产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(2): 152-162. |
[10] | 黄巧义, 吴永沛, 黄旭, 李苹, 付弘婷, 张木, 逄玉万, 曾招兵, 唐拴虎. 控释尿素与尿素配施对甜玉米产量和氮肥利用率的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(2): 163-173. |
[11] | 董伟欣, 李东晓, 张月辰. 不同氮素水平对夏玉米生理参数及产量品质的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2023, 25(1): 142-152. |
[12] | 向开宏, 吕旭, 舒川海, 伍杂日曲, 张金悦, 朱岳梅, 杨志远, 孙永健, 马均. 有机无机肥配施对精量穴直播水稻产量及氮素利用的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(9): 149-165. |
[13] | 项洪涛, 李琬, 何宁, 王强, 曾玲玲, 王曼力, 杨纯杰, 冯延江. 小豆根系对水分胁迫的生理响应及S3307的缓解效应[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(9): 39-49. |
[14] | 陈元伟, 郑华斌, 王慰亲, 旷娜, 罗友谊, 邹丹, 唐启源. 刈割处理对再生稻头季全株生物量、青贮品质和再生季产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(8): 161-171. |
[15] | 魏全全, 高英, 芶久兰, 张萌, 饶勇, 杨斌, 凡迪, 冯文豪, 肖华贵. 播种量和播种方式对冬油菜养分吸收利用及产量的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(8): 182-191. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||