(go to KOMUGI Home) (go to WIS List) (go to NO.85 Contents)

Each material was compared with neighbor cheeks. If the materials were classified in lower salt tolerance grade than cheek Keyi 26 (with average salt tolerance grade 3), we call them salt tolerant genotype.

Drought resistance of each material was tested in Dryland Farming Institute, Hebei Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences. Each material was sown both in irrigated place (under non-stress) and non-irrigated place (under stress). After comparing the evaluation methods of Finlay et al. (1963), Eberhart et al. (1966), Fischer (1978) and Lan et al. (1993), drought resistance coefficient (DRC: variety's yield under stress / variety's yield under non-stress) (Lan et al, 1993) was chosen to evaluate drought resistance. The check was Jimai 6 (DRC = 0.88). The materials with higher DRC than that of the cheek were drought resistant genotypes.

Appraisal of cold resistance was conducted in both Institute of Baoding Agricultural Sciences (local cheek variety is Taishan 1 for cold resistance) and Institute of Tangshan Agricultural Sciences (local cheek variety is Dongfanghong 3 for cold resistance). Both of which are located in the region of coldness. The lowest temperature is minus 30oC in winter. Varieties were sown in field with normal management. After winter, wilting degree was scored in 5 scales and percentage of died tillers was recorded. Cold resistance index (CRI: percentage of winter surviving tillers of a material / the percentage of winter surviving tillers of check) was calculated for eliminating the differences between years so that the materials could be compared with each other in different years. The materials with lower wilting degrees or with higher CRI than the checks were regarded as cold resistant genotypes.

Two hundred and fifty-two accessions (the data of some agronomic characters of other accessions were not recorded) were used for calculating simple correlations between 9 characteristics.


Results and discussion

Salinity tolerance evaluation
Sixty-three accessions, Lang 8519, Kecheng 3, 3053-1, Shi 87-6149-50, Jifu 80-58, 3078-2, and Jilang 8190-2 etc. were classified in salt tolerance grade 1 or grade 2. The varieties with salt tolerance grade 1 were Kecheng 5, Lang 8-7-5- 1-3, Lang 767-4-38, Shijiazhuang 10, Shi 4414, Henong 62-8, Hebeinongda 1, Hebei 1, Jiguan 85-5091, and Shi- 86- 8107 etc. There are 13 materials in salt tolerance grade 1 or grade 2 with advanced comprehensive agronomic characteristics, such as Jimai 14, Jimai 21 and Lang 8519 etc. (Table 1). In addition, salt tolerance of varieties varies along with developmental stages, such as Ji 85 Guan 680, Tangfu 75005, Bao 412 and Jimai 20 etc. with both salt tolerance and pretty seedlings and higher surviving rate of seedlings at seedling stage, but with both intolerance and poor plants at maturing stage. On the contrary, some materials were tolerant in maturing stage and untolerant at seedling stage, such as Shi 86-8107, Lang 8515 and Kecheng 3 etc. Blum (1988) reported the level of salinity resistance changing with plant age and possibly with hardening. This agrees with our views.

Drought resistance evaluation
One hundred and sixteen accessions, Lang 8504, Jimai 22, Ji 86 Guan 725, Ji 85-5091 and Jimai 21 etc. were drought resistant. The materials with both their yield under stress and their DRC were higher than or equal to that of check Jimai 6 were Danong 4, Ji 84-4152, Jishi 86-5144, Ji 85 Guan 725, Bao 405, Kecheng 4, 65-848, 84 Guan 777, Henong 215, and Jinfeng 1 etc. There are 49 materials with-both drought resistance and high comprehensive agronomic characteristics.

<--Back | -->Next

(go to KOMUGI Home) (go to WIS List) (go to NO.85 Contents)