Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology ›› 2022, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (8): 116-123.DOI: 10.13304/j.nykjdb.2021.0404
• ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH • Previous Articles
Bianqing HAO1(), Liping MA1, Yongsheng ZHAO1, Wenxin SHI1, Jianxiong WANG2, Yuchuan JING2
Received:
2021-05-12
Accepted:
2021-07-26
Online:
2022-08-15
Published:
2022-08-22
郝变青1(), 马利平1, 赵永胜1, 石文鑫1, 王建雄2, 景玉川2
作者简介:
郝变青E-mail:haobianqing@163.com
基金资助:
CLC Number:
Bianqing HAO, Liping MA, Yongsheng ZHAO, Wenxin SHI, Jianxiong WANG, Yuchuan JING. Effect of BC98-Ⅰ and B96-Ⅱ Fermentation Broth on Potato Disease Prevention and Growth and Its Effect on Soil Enzyme Activity[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(8): 116-123.
郝变青, 马利平, 赵永胜, 石文鑫, 王建雄, 景玉川. BC98-Ⅰ和B96-Ⅱ发酵液对马铃薯的防病促生作用及对土壤酶活性的影响[J]. 中国农业科技导报, 2022, 24(8): 116-123.
处理 Treatment | 生长速率 Growth rate/(cm·d-1) | 抑制率 Inhibitory rate/% | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7 d | 14 d | 21 d | 28 d | 平均 Mean | ||
T2100 | 0.13±0.01 c | 0.17±0.02 a | 0.15±0.02 b | 0.17±0.02 b | 0.16±0.01 b | 86.21±0.86 a |
T2300 | 0.17±0.01 b | 0.18±0.00 a | 0.17±0.01 a | 0.21±0.01 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 84.48±0.86 a |
T1+T2100 | 0.13±0.02 c | 0.18±0.02 a | 0.16±0.01 ab | 0.17±0.01 b | 0.17±0.01 b | 85.34±0.87 a |
T1+T2300 | 0.12±0.01 d | 0.14±0.01 b | 0.14±0.01 bc | 0.18±0.01 b | 0.15±0.01 bc | 87.07±0.86 a |
CK | 1.16±0.00 a | — | — | — | 1.16±0.00 b | — |
Table 1 Growth rate of Phytophthorainfestans under different treatments
处理 Treatment | 生长速率 Growth rate/(cm·d-1) | 抑制率 Inhibitory rate/% | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7 d | 14 d | 21 d | 28 d | 平均 Mean | ||
T2100 | 0.13±0.01 c | 0.17±0.02 a | 0.15±0.02 b | 0.17±0.02 b | 0.16±0.01 b | 86.21±0.86 a |
T2300 | 0.17±0.01 b | 0.18±0.00 a | 0.17±0.01 a | 0.21±0.01 a | 0.18±0.01 a | 84.48±0.86 a |
T1+T2100 | 0.13±0.02 c | 0.18±0.02 a | 0.16±0.01 ab | 0.17±0.01 b | 0.17±0.01 b | 85.34±0.87 a |
T1+T2300 | 0.12±0.01 d | 0.14±0.01 b | 0.14±0.01 bc | 0.18±0.01 b | 0.15±0.01 bc | 87.07±0.86 a |
CK | 1.16±0.00 a | — | — | — | 1.16±0.00 b | — |
处理 Treatment | 出苗率 Emergence rate/% | 提高率 Increasing rate/% |
---|---|---|
T2100 | 88.95±4.41 b | 19.96 c |
T2300 | 97.84±2.20 a | 31.95 a |
T1+T2100 | 82.26±2.23 b | 10.94 d |
T1+T2300 | 91.17±5.91 ab | 22.95 b |
CK | 74.15±9.82 c | — |
Table 2 Emergence rate of potato under different treatments
处理 Treatment | 出苗率 Emergence rate/% | 提高率 Increasing rate/% |
---|---|---|
T2100 | 88.95±4.41 b | 19.96 c |
T2300 | 97.84±2.20 a | 31.95 a |
T1+T2100 | 82.26±2.23 b | 10.94 d |
T1+T2300 | 91.17±5.91 ab | 22.95 b |
CK | 74.15±9.82 c | — |
处理 Treatment | 株高Plant height/cm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 d | 27 d | 34 d | 41 d | 48 d | 62 d | |
T2100 | 3.01±0.51 bc | 8.22±1.20 bc | 15.72±1.07 c | 34.51±1.84 ab | 46.39±2.73 a | 55.87±7.24 a |
T2300 | 3.92±0.22 a | 13.04±0.34 a | 22.53±1.15 a | 39.42±1.01 a | 47.37±1.82 a | 55.04±1.82 a |
T1+T2100 | 2.94±0.50 bc | 12.56±1.81 a | 19.47±1.56 b | 32.24±1.25 b | 45.86±0.44 a | 52.42±3.13 a |
T1+T2300 | 2.26±0.64 c | 9.77±1.14 b | 16.76±0.44 c | 31.33±0.46 b | 40.14±1.56 b | 53.46±2.64 a |
CK | 1.07±0.13 d | 6.90±1.45 c | 11.20±2.23 d | 23.28±2.47 c | 38.43±2.80 c | 42.74±2.70 b |
Table 3 Plant height of potato under different treatments
处理 Treatment | 株高Plant height/cm | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 d | 27 d | 34 d | 41 d | 48 d | 62 d | |
T2100 | 3.01±0.51 bc | 8.22±1.20 bc | 15.72±1.07 c | 34.51±1.84 ab | 46.39±2.73 a | 55.87±7.24 a |
T2300 | 3.92±0.22 a | 13.04±0.34 a | 22.53±1.15 a | 39.42±1.01 a | 47.37±1.82 a | 55.04±1.82 a |
T1+T2100 | 2.94±0.50 bc | 12.56±1.81 a | 19.47±1.56 b | 32.24±1.25 b | 45.86±0.44 a | 52.42±3.13 a |
T1+T2300 | 2.26±0.64 c | 9.77±1.14 b | 16.76±0.44 c | 31.33±0.46 b | 40.14±1.56 b | 53.46±2.64 a |
CK | 1.07±0.13 d | 6.90±1.45 c | 11.20±2.23 d | 23.28±2.47 c | 38.43±2.80 c | 42.74±2.70 b |
处理Treatment | 根 Root | 地上部 Above ground | 植株 Total plant | 单株产量 Tuber yield per plant/(g∙plant-1) | 增产率 Yield increase rate/% | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
鲜重 Fresh weight/g | 促生率Promoting rate/% | 鲜重 Fresh weight/g | 促生率 Promoting rate/% | 鲜重 Fresh weight/g | 促生率 Promoting rate/% | |||
T2100 | 2.18±0.20 bc | 15.34 | 13.28±2.47 a | 53.53 | 15.46±2.55 a | 46.68 | 365.27±5.64 b | 31.18 |
T2300 | 2.84±0.16 a | 50.26 | 13.46±0.84 a | 55.61 | 16.31±0.87 a | 54.74 | 374.55±6.21 a | 34.50 |
T1+T2100 | 2.10±0.12 bc | 11.11 | 12.54±0.81 ab | 44.97 | 14.64±0.93 ab | 38.90 | 377.36±7.35 a | 35.51 |
T1+T2300 | 2.50±0.20 ab | 32.28 | 10.40±0.73 ab | 20.23 | 12.90±0.73 ab | 22.39 | 374.50±6.58 a | 34.49 |
CK | 1.89±0.05 c | — | 8.65±0.32 b | — | 10.54±0.35 b | — | 278.46±4.38 c | — |
Table 4 Biomass of potato under different treatments
处理Treatment | 根 Root | 地上部 Above ground | 植株 Total plant | 单株产量 Tuber yield per plant/(g∙plant-1) | 增产率 Yield increase rate/% | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
鲜重 Fresh weight/g | 促生率Promoting rate/% | 鲜重 Fresh weight/g | 促生率 Promoting rate/% | 鲜重 Fresh weight/g | 促生率 Promoting rate/% | |||
T2100 | 2.18±0.20 bc | 15.34 | 13.28±2.47 a | 53.53 | 15.46±2.55 a | 46.68 | 365.27±5.64 b | 31.18 |
T2300 | 2.84±0.16 a | 50.26 | 13.46±0.84 a | 55.61 | 16.31±0.87 a | 54.74 | 374.55±6.21 a | 34.50 |
T1+T2100 | 2.10±0.12 bc | 11.11 | 12.54±0.81 ab | 44.97 | 14.64±0.93 ab | 38.90 | 377.36±7.35 a | 35.51 |
T1+T2300 | 2.50±0.20 ab | 32.28 | 10.40±0.73 ab | 20.23 | 12.90±0.73 ab | 22.39 | 374.50±6.58 a | 34.49 |
CK | 1.89±0.05 c | — | 8.65±0.32 b | — | 10.54±0.35 b | — | 278.46±4.38 c | — |
处理 Treatment | 1周 1 week | 2周 2 weeks | 6周 6 weeks | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | |
T2100 | 11.11 c | 2.78 d | 77.83 a | 27.78 c | 8.76 c | 84.57 a | 55.56 c | 19.57 c | 77.10 a |
T2300 | 16.67 b | 3.52 b | 71.93 b | 33.33 bc | 9.56 bc | 83.16 b | 61.11 b | 20.56 b | 75.94 a |
T1+T2100 | 11.11 c | 3.11 c | 75.20 a | 33.33 bc | 9.34 bc | 83.55 ab | 50.00 d | 20.48 b | 76.04 a |
T1+T2300 | 11.11 c | 3.64 b | 70.97 b | 38.89 b | 10.25 b | 81.95 c | 61.11 b | 21.32 bc | 75.06 b |
CK | 27.78 a | 12.54 a | — | 88.89 a | 56.78 a | — | 100.00 a | 85.47 a | — |
Table 5 Incidence rate and disease index of potato late blight under different treatments in pot culture
处理 Treatment | 1周 1 week | 2周 2 weeks | 6周 6 weeks | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | |
T2100 | 11.11 c | 2.78 d | 77.83 a | 27.78 c | 8.76 c | 84.57 a | 55.56 c | 19.57 c | 77.10 a |
T2300 | 16.67 b | 3.52 b | 71.93 b | 33.33 bc | 9.56 bc | 83.16 b | 61.11 b | 20.56 b | 75.94 a |
T1+T2100 | 11.11 c | 3.11 c | 75.20 a | 33.33 bc | 9.34 bc | 83.55 ab | 50.00 d | 20.48 b | 76.04 a |
T1+T2300 | 11.11 c | 3.64 b | 70.97 b | 38.89 b | 10.25 b | 81.95 c | 61.11 b | 21.32 bc | 75.06 b |
CK | 27.78 a | 12.54 a | — | 88.89 a | 56.78 a | — | 100.00 a | 85.47 a | — |
处理 Treatment | 2周2 weeks | 6周6 weeks | 收获期Harvest stage | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 植株鲜重 Plant weight/g | 增长率 Growth rate/% | 产量 Yield/g | 增产率Yield increase rate/% | |
T2100 | 0 c | 0 c | 100.00 a | 6.80 c | 8.57 d | 78.98 a | 48.03 bc | 12.99 | 285.67 a | 15.70 |
T2300 | 0 c | 0 c | 100.00 a | 9.64 b | 10.24 c | 70.04 b | 48.94 a | 15.13 | 289.52 a | 17.26 |
T1+T2100 | 0 c | 0 c | 100.00 a | 7.77 c | 9.56 c | 76.92 a | 47.65 c | 12.09 | 283.64 a | 14.88 |
T1+T2300 | 1.11 b | 1.42 b | 90.86 b | 10.10 b | 13.54 b | 68.47 c | 48.62 a | 14.37 | 285.20 a | 15.51 |
CK | 7.29 a | 15.54 a | — | 32.54 a | 28.64 a | — | 42.51 d | — | 246.90 b | — |
Table 6 Incidence rate and disease index of potato late blight under different treatments in field culture
处理 Treatment | 2周2 weeks | 6周6 weeks | 收获期Harvest stage | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 发病率 Incidence rate/% | 病情指数 Disease index | 防效 Disease control rate/% | 植株鲜重 Plant weight/g | 增长率 Growth rate/% | 产量 Yield/g | 增产率Yield increase rate/% | |
T2100 | 0 c | 0 c | 100.00 a | 6.80 c | 8.57 d | 78.98 a | 48.03 bc | 12.99 | 285.67 a | 15.70 |
T2300 | 0 c | 0 c | 100.00 a | 9.64 b | 10.24 c | 70.04 b | 48.94 a | 15.13 | 289.52 a | 17.26 |
T1+T2100 | 0 c | 0 c | 100.00 a | 7.77 c | 9.56 c | 76.92 a | 47.65 c | 12.09 | 283.64 a | 14.88 |
T1+T2300 | 1.11 b | 1.42 b | 90.86 b | 10.10 b | 13.54 b | 68.47 c | 48.62 a | 14.37 | 285.20 a | 15.51 |
CK | 7.29 a | 15.54 a | — | 32.54 a | 28.64 a | — | 42.51 d | — | 246.90 b | — |
1 | 田甲春,胡新元,田世龙,等.19个品种马铃薯营养成分分析[J].营养学报,2017,39(1):102-104. |
TIAN J C, HU X Y, TIAN S L, et al.. Analysis of nutritional components of 19 varieties of potatoes [J]. Acta Nutr. Sin., 2017, 39(1):102-104. | |
2 | 晏书诚.中国马铃薯主粮化战略研究[J].中国科技信息,2017(5):103-104. |
3 | 李庆双.马铃薯营养价值及产业种植分析[J].食品安全导刊,2021(11):56-58. |
4 | 黄冲,刘万才.近年我国马铃薯病虫害发生特点与监控对策[J].中国植保导刊,2016,36(6):48-52. |
5 | ROY S G, DEY T, COOKE D, et al.. The dynamics of Phytophthorainfestans populations in the major potato-growing regions of Asia: a review [J/OL]. Plant Pathol., 2021: 13360 [2021-03-25]. . |
6 | 李磊,陆杰,包亚洲,等.四种化合物诱导马铃薯抗晚疫病的效果及其相关防御基因表达分析[J].植物保护学报,2020,47(6):1277-1286. |
LI L, LU J, BAO Y Z, et al.. The effects of four compounds on potato resistance to late blight and the expression analysis of related defense genes [J]. Acta Phytophylacica Sin., 2020, 47(6):1277-1286. | |
7 | 陆燚,吴学大,周平,等.马铃薯晚疫病药剂防控经济效益分析[J].农业科技通讯,2021(3):180-183. |
LU Y, WU X D, ZHOU P, et al.. Analysis of economic benefits of potato late blight chemical prevention and control [J]. Bull. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2021(3):180-183. | |
8 | 冉平,王玉娟,李继明,等.生物源农药对马铃薯产量及病害防效的影响[J].中国马铃薯,2020,34(2):114-120. |
RAN P, WANG Y J, LI J M, et al.. Effects of biological pesticides on potato yield and disease control [J]. Potato China, 2020, 34(2):114-120. | |
9 | 马利平,郝变青,王静,等. B96-Ⅱ发酵液对辣椒病害的防治及对植株的促生效果[J].山西农业科学,2013,41(10):1108-1111. |
MA L P, HAO B Q, WANG J, et al.. B96-Ⅱ fermentation broth to control pepper diseases and promote plant growth [J]. Shanxi Agric. Sci., 2013, 41(10):1108-1111. | |
10 | 郝变青,马利平,乔雄梧,等.拮抗菌对黄瓜枯萎病菌的室内生物活性[J].应用与环境生物学报,2001,7(2):155-157. |
HAO B Q, MA L P, QIAO X W, et al.. Bioassary of antagonistic bacteria against cunmber Fusarium wilt [J]. Chin. J. Appl. Environ. Biol., 2001,7(2):155-157. | |
11 | 毕朝位,黎艳平,罗国全.致病疫霉(Phytophthorainfestans)的分离与培养方法[J].中国农学通报,2005,121(10):306-308. |
BI C W, LI Y P, LUO G Q. The study on isolation and culture Phytophthorainfestans [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2005,121(10):306-308. | |
12 | 陈亚兰,张健.不同杀菌剂对马铃薯晚疫病的防治效果[J].中国马铃薯,2017,31(6):359-363. |
CHEN Y L, ZHANG J. The control effect of different fungicides on potato late blight [J]. China Potatoes, 2017, 31(6):359-363. | |
13 | 周礼恺.土壤酶学[M].北京:科学出版社,1987:1-267. |
ZHOU L K. Soil Enzymology [M]. Beijing: Science Press, 1987:1-267. | |
14 | 徐雪亮,刘子荣,曾绍民,等.5种生物药剂防治马铃薯主要病害田间药效试验[J].中国农学通报,2020,36(9):122-126. |
XU X L, LIU Z R, ZENG S M, et al.. Field efficacy test of 5 kinds of biological agents for preventing and controlling main potato diseases [J]. Chin. Agric. Sci. Bull., 2020, 36(9):122-126. | |
15 | 黄保全,张康,王清文,等. 枯草芽孢杆菌可湿性粉剂防治马铃薯晚疫病田间药效试验[J]. 陕西农业科学,2016(9):23-24, 72. |
HAUNG B Q, ZHANG K, WANG Q W, et al..Field efficacy test of bacillus subtiliswettable powder against potato late blight [J]. Shaanxi Agric. Sci., 2016(9):23-24, 72. | |
16 | LAL M, CHAUDHARY S, RAWAL S, et al.. Evaluation of bioagents and neem based products against late blight disease (Phytophthorainfestans) of potato [J/OL]. Indian Phytopathol., 2021(4):6[2021-03-25].. |
17 | ALAOUI K, CHAFIK Z, ARABI M, et al.. In vitro antifungal activity of lactobacillus against potato late blight Phytophthorainfestans [J/OL]. Materials Today: Proceedings, 2021(12):338 [2021-03-25]. . |
[1] | Boqiong WU, Dongyao CUI, Renhe JIAO, Jian SONG, Yaoyao ZHAN, Yaqing CHANG. Cloning of Hexokinase Gene from Strongylocentrotus intermedius and Its Expression Response to High Temperature-acidification Stress [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(7): 205-217. |
[2] | Lili WANG, Congpei YIN, Feng LI, Zhimin YANG, Fangming LIU, Baisong LIN, Xiaojing LIU, Haijun LIU, Jing SUN, Dongdong SHAN, Jianghui CUI, Zhenqing ZHANG. Microbial Community Structure of Potato Rhizosphere Soil and Its Response to Drought Stress [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(6): 58-69. |
[3] | Chenke CUI, Tao LIN, Yanbo AN, Peng CUI. Genetic Diversity Analysis of Different Characteristics of Sweetpotato Varieties by ISSR Molecular Marker [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(5): 68-75. |
[4] | Tianwei PENG, Huiya XIE, Sijun LI, Yixuan LIU, Kaifeng SHUAI, Yuanyuan PENG, Qing WANG, Diqin LI. Effects of Sodium Dinitrate with Bacillus Sbutilis Complex on Growth and Physiological Indexes of Tobacco Seedlings [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(4): 154-161. |
[5] | Yanqiong LIANG, Rui LI, Weihuai WU, Jingen XI, Shibei TAN, Xing HUANG, Ying LU, Chunping HE, Kexian YI. Inhibitory Mechanism of Volatilized Active Components from Bacillus subtilis Czk1 on Ganoderma pseudoferreum [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(2): 152-159. |
[6] | Wei ZHANG, Zhixin LI, Xue ZHAO, Jinpeng ZHANG, Chunjiang FU, Weiping LIU, Qianqian YU. Development of a Colloidal Gold Immunochromatographic Test Strip for Detection of Potato Virus X, Virus Y and Virus S [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2022, 24(1): 211-217. |
[7] | LI Chengchen, SUO Haicui, LUO Huanming, AN Kang, LIU Jitao, WANG Li, SHAN Jianwei, YANG Shaohai, LI Xiaobo. Effects of Reduced Fertilizer Application and Fertilization Methods on Potato Yield and Tuber Nitrogen Accumulation [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(9): 173-182. |
[8] | YU Xianfeng, ZHANG Xucheng, MIAO Pinggui, FANG Yanjie, MA Yifan, WANG Hongli, HOU Huizhi. Effect of Deep Fertilization on Water Use Efficiency and Yield of Potato Under Vertical Rotary Tillage [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(7): 182-190. |
[9] | ZHANG Yujie, GUO Pingyi, GUO Meijun, ZHOU Hao, YUAN Xiangyang, DONG Shuqi, WANG Yuguo. Influences of Exogenous Selenium Mineral Powder on Protective Enzyme Activity, Yield and Selenium Content of Foxtail Millet [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(5): 153-159. |
[10] | LIU Qianjie, CHENG Yunxia, JIA Kai, SHI Zhenyu, ZHANG Jing, WEI Shaowei, WU Hui*. Influences of Nitrogen Application on Nitrogen Metabolism Enzymes Activities, Yield and Quality of Tomato in Composite Sand Culture [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(4): 183-191. |
[11] | FAN Na, PENG Zhidong, BAI Wenbin*, ZHAO Jianwu. Influences of Microbial Agents on Soil Enzyme Activity and Sorghum Growth [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(2): 185-192. |
[12] | WANG Siji, GUO Yanchun, ZENG Lusheng, SUN Xianmin, CHU Qinggang, WANG Sheng. Effects of Suaeda Planting Rate on Soil Enzyme Activity and Aggregation of Coastal Saline Alkali Land [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(12): 179-185. |
[13] | GAO Riping, §, LIU Xiaoyue, §, DU Erxiao, HAN Yunfei, REN Yongfeng, GAO Yu, ZHAO Peiyi, LI Huanchun, ZHANG Peng, . Influences of Ridge Film and Furrow Sowing and Straw Returning on Soil Moisture, Enzyme Activity and Yield of Maize in Loess Plateau of Inner Mongolia [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(11): 181-190. |
[14] | YUE Kun, JIN Linxue, LI Yunpeng, JIANG Shaojie, NIU Dong. Temporal and Spatial Variation of Drought Index and Its Impact on Potato Yield in Central Inner Mongolia [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(10): 161-170. |
[15] | ZHANG Lei, LUO Zehua, YANG Mingchuan, LI Shigui, XIN Yuhua, CAI Bin, LIU Haobao, CENG Dailong, GU Jingang, DUAN Bihua. Diversity of Fermentation Microbes and Changes of Hydrolytic Enzyme Activities of Cigar Leaf Raw Materials [J]. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2021, 23(10): 171-180. |
Viewed | ||||||
Full text |
|
|||||
Abstract |
|
|||||