American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2013, 4, 1911-1917
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2013.410234 Published Online October 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajps)
1911
Comparison of Salt Tolerance in Brassicas and Some
Related Species
Jianjie Su1, Shu Wu1, Zhijie Xu1, Si Qiu1, Tingting Luo1, Yimin Yang1, Qitao Chen1, Yuying Xia1,
Song Zou1, Bang-Lian Huang1*, Bangquan Huan g1,2*
1College of Life Science, Hubei University, Wuhan, China; 2Hubei Industrial Biotechnology Key Lab, Hubei University, Wuhan,
China.
Received June 30th, 2013; revised July 29th, 2013; accepted August 15th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Jianjie Su et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ABSTRACT
In this paper the salt tolerance in Brassicas and some related species was compared. When seedlings germinated on sand
cultures with liquid MS medium were considered, the relative germination rate, root length, shoot length and fresh
seedling weight were significantly correlated with each other (P < 0.01), and only the relative shoot lengths were sig-
nificantly different among the tested genotypes (P < 0.05); When both seedlings germinated on MS and MS plus 0.4%
NaCl were considered, only the relative shoot length of seedlings germinated on MS was significantly different from
that germinated on MS + 0.4% NaCl (P < 0.05), and also only the relative shoot lengths were significantly different
among the tested genotypes (P < 0.01). Raphanu s sativa cv. Changfeng, B. juncea cv. JC and Brassica napus cv. ZS 10
showed low salt tolerance in terms of relative germination rate, root length, shoot length and fresh seedling weight; B.
oleracea cv. JF-1, Sinapis alba cv. HN-2 showed high salt tolerance in terms of relative germination rate, root length,
shoot length and fresh seedling weight. Based on our result we suggest that relative shoot length might be convenient to
rank the salt tolerance but cluster analysis based on multiple parameters of relative germination rate, root length, shoot
length and fresh seedling weight might be more accurate in screening for salt tolerance in Brassicas and related species.
Keywords: Brassica; Related Species; Salt Tolerance; Multivariate Cluster Analysis
1. Introduction
Soil salinity is an issue that affects an estimated 6% of
the world’s land surface area or 12,780 million hectares
(Mha) and secondary salinization from irrigation impacts
an estimated 20% of irrigated land or 1474 Mha [1]. Ac-
cording to the United Nations reports, 20% of agricul-
tural land and 50% of world cropland are salt affected [2].
Furthermore, there is also a dangerous trend of a 10% per
year increase in the saline area throughout the world [3].
China has a large area of inland saline-alkali land, ap-
proximately 8.1 MHa, equivalent to 40% of the total cul-
tivated land in the country [4,5].
The Brassicaceae family consists of many important
field crops such as oilseed rape, the Brassica oleracea ve-
getable group (cauliflower, broccoli, brussels sprouts,
kale) as well as other species such as Brassica rapa and
Raphanus sativus [6]. However, their growth, yield, and
oil production are markedly reduced due to salinity [7].
The most common adverse effect of salinity on the crop
of Brassica is the reduction in plant height, size and yield
as well as deterioration of the product quality [8,9].
In previous studies, the Brassicas were usually grown
in salt conditions to compare parameters such as relative
germination rate, root length, fresh seedling weight or
seed yield [10-17]. In the present study the seeds of Bras-
sicas and related species were grown on sand cultures
with and without salt to explore an efficient index to com-
pare the salt tolerance in Brassicas and related species
and to determine variations in degree of salt tolerance at
inter- and intra-specific levels particularly at the germi-
nation and seedling stages.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
Seeds of Sinapis alba (cv.HN1, HN2), Brassica carinata
cv. EJ and Isatis indigotica cv. HN were provided by Pro.
Dr. Zaiyun Li of Huazhong Agricultural University,
*Corresponding author.

Comparison of Salt Tolerance in Brassicas and Some Related Species 1912
China. The Brassica napus seeds were from the Oil Crops
Institute, CAAS, China. The other seeds were provided
by Lab of Plant Genetics and Breeding of Hubei Univer-
sity, China.
2.2. Methods
Sixty healthy seeds for each genotype were inoculated on
sand cultures with liquid MS and MS + 0.4% NaCl. Ger-
mination rates were scored 4 - 5 days after inoculation.
The germinated seeds on MS and MS + 0.4% NaCl were
transferred onto sand cultures with MS and MS + 0.4%
NaCl for 3 - 4 days and then root length, shoot length and
fresh seedling weight were measured. The temperature
was set at 25˚C with a 16-hr photo period under 2000 lx.
The experiment was arranged in a completely random-
ized design with three replicates. Salt tolerance indices
were calculated according to Zeng et al. (2002) [18] and
further used to classify genotypes using cluster analysis
as described by El. Hendawy et al. (2005) [19]. Cluster
analysis was carried out based on Euclidean distance of
the salt tolerance indices. The cluster group rankings were
obtained from the average of means of the multiple pa-
rameters in each cluster group. A sum was obtained by
adding the number of cluster group rankings in each ge-
notype. The genotypes were finally ranked based on the
sums, such that those with the smallest and largest sums
were ranked respectively as the most and least tolerant
genotypes in terms of relative salt tolerance. Variance ana-
lyses, multiple comparisons and cluster analyses were
carried out on SPSS.
3. Results
3.1. Correlations among Relative Germination
Rate, Root Length, Shoot Length and Fresh
Seedling Weight
From Table 1 it was found that when seeds were germi-
nated on sand cultures with liquid MS medium, the rela-
tive germination rate, root length, shoot length and fresh
seedling weight were significantly correlated with each
other (P < 0.01); When seeds were germinated on sand
cultures with liquid MS medium plus 0.4% NaCl, the
relative germination rate was only significantly correlat-
ed with shoot length (P < 0.05), the relative root length
was significantly correlated with shoot length and fresh
seedling weight (P < 0.01), and relative shoot length was
significantly correlated with fresh seedling weight (P <
0.01).
3.2. Effect of Germination Condition on Relative
Root Length, Shoot Length and Fresh
Seedling Weight
When only seeds germinated on MS medium were con-
Table 1. Correlations among relative germination rate, root
length, shoot length and fresh seedling weight.
Relative
germination
rate
Relative
root length
Relative
shoot
length
Relative
fresh
weight
Relative
germination
rate
0.430** 0.416** 0.454**
Relative root
length 0.019 0.423** 0.486**
Relative
shoot length0.251* 0.593** 0.804**
Relative
fresh weight−0.075 0.552** 0.500**
Note: Left Bottom: Correlations of relative germination rate, root length,
shoot length and fresh weight of seedlings germinated on MS + 0.4% NaCl;
Top Right: Correlations of relative germination rate, root length, shoot
length and fresh weight of seedlings germinated on MS; **P < 0.01; *P <
0.05.
sidered, variance analysis indicated that the difference of
relative shoot lengths among the tested genotypes was
significant (P < 0.05), while that of relative root length
and fresh seedling weight were not significant (data not
shown).
When both seeds germinated on MS and MS + 0.4%
NaCl were considered, variance analysis indicated that
the relative shoot length of seedlings germinated on MS
was significantly different from that germinated on MS +
0.4% NaCl (P < 0.05), while that of relative root length
and fresh seedling weight were not significant; the rela-
tive shoot lengths were significantly different among the
tested genotypes (P < 0.01), while that of relative germi-
nation rate, root length and fresh seedling weight were
not significant (data not shown).
From Table 2 it was found that based on relative shoot
length B. carinata cv. EJ, B. oleracea cv. JF-1 and Eruca
sativa cv. hub12 showed high salt tolerance while Rap-
hanus sativus cv. changfeng and B. napus cv. ZS 10 were
identified as most salt-sensitive.
3.3. Cluster Analysis of Salt Tolerance
From Table 3 it was found that R. sativa cv. changfeng,
B. juncea cv. JC and B. napus cv. ZS 10 showed low salt
tolerance in terms of relative germination rate, root length,
shoot length and fresh weight; B. oleracea cv. JF-1, S.
alba cv. HN-2 showed high salt tolerance in terms of
relative germination rate, root length, shoot length and
fresh seedling weight; B. carinata cv. EJ showed high
salt tolerance in terms of root length, shoot length and
fresh seedling weight but with very low salt tolerance in
terms relative germination rate.
From Figure 1 it was found that B. oleracea cv. JF-1,
B. carinata cv. EJ and Sinapis alba cv. HN-2 were iden-
tified as highly salt-tolerant. S. alba cv. HN-1, I. indigo-
ica cv. HN and B. rapa cv. xiaobaicai were identified t

Comparison of Salt Tolerance in Brassicas and Some Related Species 1913
Table 2. Multiple comparison of relative shoot length among the tested genotypes when seeds germinated on MS were con-
sidered.
Genotye 1 2 3 4 5
Duncana,b R. sativus cv. changfeng 51.2267
B. napus cv. ZS 10 52.8000 52.8000
B. oleracea cv. zigan 65.7533 65.7533 65.7533
B. napus cv. ZY 821 66.6100 66.6100 66.6100
R. sativus cv. red 67.1000 67.1000 67.1000
C. abyssinica cv. hubu-1 68.2667 68.2667 68.2667
B. oleracea cv. xueyuan 68.4967 68.4967 68.4967
B. oleracea cv. qinghua 70.9833 70.9833 70.9833
B. juncea cv. JC 71.0333 71.0333 71.0333
B. napus cv. ZS 9 72.7133 72.7133 72.7133
C. abyssinica cv. hubu-2 74.0267 74.0267 74.0267
R. sativus cv. shunyuan 77.6567 77.6567 77.6567 77.6567
C. abyssinica cv. hubu-3 78.7367 78.7367 78.7367 78.7367
B. rapa cv. dabaicai 78.8000 78.8000 78.8000 78.8000
B. napus cv. ZYZ 7 81.7033 81.7033 81.7033 81.7033
R. sativus cv. nanpan 82.0167 82.0167 82.0167 82.0167
B. napus cv. ZS 11 82.4967 82.4967 82.4967 82.4967
R. sativus cv. jiujin 82.5067 82.5067 82.5067 82.5067
R. sativus cv. may 83.8400 83.8400 83.8400 83.8400
B. juncea cv. yongsheng 84.6500 84.6500 84.6500 84.6500
B. oleracea cv. GJ-1 86.2933 86.2933 86.2933 86.2933
E. sativa cv. hub11 86.4000 86.4000 86.4000 86.4000
S. alba cv. HN-1 86.6667 86.6667 86.6667 86.6667
I. indigotica cv. HN 87.1133 87.1133 87.1133 87.1133
B. rapa cv. xiaobaicai 89.6400 89.6400 89.6400 89.6400
E. sativa cv. hub10 94.9733 94.9733 94.9733
S. alba cv. HN-2 95.8467 95.8467
B. rapa cv. shiyue 97.8600 97.8600
E. sativa cv. hub12 102.1733 102.1733 102.1733
B. ol erace a cv. JF-1 117.0767 117.0767
B. carinata cv. EJ 135.7000
Note: The genotypes were classified into 5 groups. Genotypes in the same group are not significantly different from each other.
as salt-tolerant, R. sativa cv. changfeng and B. napus cv.
ZS 10 were identified as most salt-sensitive.
4. Discussion
Although salt stress affects all growth stages of a plant,
seed germination and seedling growth stages are known
to be more sensitive in most plant species [8,20,21].
Huang et al. (2010) used 0.37% NaCl to compare the salt
tolerance during germination and seedling growth among
genotypes of B. napus, B. juncea and B. rapa [13]. Our
preliminary studies also showed that seed germination,
root length, shoot length and fresh seedling weight of
Brassicas were inhibited by 20% - 60% when the NaCl
concentration was 0.4%. Therefore we used 0.4% NaCl
for seed inoculation and seedling growth to compare the
salt tolerance.
In earlier screening of Brassica species for salt toler-
ance, the superiority of amphidiploid species B. carinata,
B. juncea, and B. napus over the diploid species, B.rapa,
B. nigra, and B. oleracea was proposed from different
tudies [8,22-24]. It has been further suggested that the s

Comparison of Salt Tolerance in Brassicas and Some Related Species 1914
Table 3. Rankings of genotypes for their salt tolerance in terms of relative germination rate, root length, shoot length and
fresh seedling weight.
Genotype Given
No.
Rank of relative
germination rate
Rank of relative
root length
Rank of relative
shoot length
Rank of relative
seedling weight
Final genotype
ranking
R. sativus cv. jiujin 1 29 12 14 21 20
R. sativus cv. changfeng 2 26 29 31 31 31
R. sativus cv. shunyuan 3 7 7 20 26 13
R. sativus cv. nanpan 4 15 21 16 17 17
R. sativus cv. may 5 25 10 13 19 15
R. sativus cv. red 6 19 14 27 29 27
B. napus ZS 11 7 17 6 15 18 12
B. napus cv. ZS 9 8 20 22 22 7 18
B. napus cv. ZY 821 9 16 27 28 12 21
B. napus cv. ZYZ 7 10 24 9 17 13 14
B. napus cv. ZS 10 11 31 13 30 30 29
C. abyssinica cv. hubu-1 12 27 26 26 14 28
C. abyssinica cv. hubu-2 13 12 28 21 23 22
C. abyssinica cv. hubu-3 14 10 15 19 24 16
E. sativa cv. hub12 15 9 23 3 9 8
E. sativa cv. Hub11 16 21 30 10 25 25
E. sativa cv. Hub10 17 13 24 6 11 11
B. oleracea cv. qinghua 18 4 31 24 28 26
B. oleracea cv. zigan 19 23 16 29 16 22
B. oleracea cv. xueyuan 20 22 18 25 20 24
B. oleracea cv. JF-1 21 1 1 2 2 1
B. oleracea cv. GJ-1 22 11 11 11 4 7
B. juncea cv. yongsheng 23 5 19 12 8 8
B. juncea cv. JC 24 30 25 23 27 30
B. rapa cv. xiaobaicai 25 8 8 7 6 4
B. rapa cv. shiyue 26 18 20 4 5 10
B. rapa cv. dabaicai 27 14 17 18 22 18
S. alba cv. HN-1 28 3 5 9 15 5
S. alba cv. HN-2 29 2 2 5 3 2
B. carinata cv. EJ 30 28 3 1 1 6
I. indigotica cv. HN 31 6 4 8 10 3
salt tolerance of amphidiploids has been acquired from
the A (B. rapa) and C (B. oleracea) genomes [10]. How-
ever, there were also different conclusions as significant
inter- and intraspecific variation for salt tolerance exists
within Brassicas, which can be exploited through selec-
tion and breeding for enhancing salt tolerance of the
crops [9,12,13,25-27]. For example, of turnip cultivars,
Shaljum desi surakh was highest in seed germination,
while it was lowest in seedling shoot dry biomass pro-
duction. However, Neela Shaljum having lower seed ger-
mination percentage produced maximum seedling shoot
dry biomass. In the same way, cv. Desi of radish with
minimum seed germination had highest shoot dry weight
under saline conditions [12]. Therefore efficient and ac-
curate indices and criteria for identifying salt-tolerance in
Brassicas and related species are needed.
The multivariate cluster analysis method was recom-
mended as the best criteria for the identification of salt
tolerance in crop species such as rice [18,28,29], green
gram [30], wheat [19], tomato [31], sugarcane [32], pea-
nut [33], cauliflower [34]. As pointed out by Khrais et al.
[35] and Zeng et al. [18], the advantages of using a mul-
tivariate analysis in the evaluation of salt tolerance are
hat it allows: 1) a simultaneous analysis of multiple t

Comparison of Salt Tolerance in Brassicas and Some Related Species 1915
Figure 1. Hierarchical cluster analysis of the genotypes based on multiple salt tolerance indices of seedlings germinated on
MS medium (Euclidean distance). The genotypes that the numbers represent were indicated in Table 3.
parameters to increase the accuracy of the genotype
ranking; 2) the ranking of genotypes even when plants
are evaluated at different salt levels and salt tolerance
varies with salinity levels, especially when the salt toler-
ance indices are averaged across salt levels; and 3) a
more convenient and accurate estimation of salt tolerance
among genotypes by simply adding the numbers in clus-
ter group ranking at different salt levels.
In the present study, when seedlings germinated on
sand cultures with liquid MS medium were considered,
the relative germination rate, root length, shoot length
and fresh seedling weight were significantly correlated
with each other (P < 0.01), and the relative shoot lengths
were significantly different among the tested genotypes
(P < 0.05), while the relative root length and relative
fresh seedling weight were not significantly different;
when seedlings germinated on liquid MS medium plus
0.4% NaCl were considered, the relative germination rate
was only significantly correlated with shoot length (P <
0.05), the relative root length was significantly correlated
with shoot length and fresh seedling weight (P < 0.01),
and relative shoot length was significantly correlated

Comparison of Salt Tolerance in Brassicas and Some Related Species 1916
with fresh seedling weight (P < 0.01). When both seed-
lings germinated on MS and MS plus 0.4% NaCl were
considered, the relative shoot length of seedlings germi-
nated on MS was significantly different from that ger-
minated on MS + 0.4% NaCl (P < 0.05), suggesting that
germination in salt condition had some selection effect
for shoot length, while relative root length and fresh seed-
ling weight were not significantly different; the relative
shoot lengths were significantly different among the test-
ed genotypes (P < 0.01), while the relative germination
rate, root length and fresh seedling weight were not sig-
nificantly different.
Based on relative shoot length B. carinata cv. EJ, B.
oleracea cv. JF-1 and E. sativa cv. hub12 were classified
as highly salt-tolerant while R. sativus cv. Changfeng,
and B. napus cv. ZS 10 were identified as most salt-sen-
sitive. R. sativa cv. changfeng, B. juncea cv. JC and B.
napus cv. ZS 10 showed low salt tolerance in terms of
relative germination rate, root length, shoot length and
fresh seedling weight; B. oleracea cv. JF-1, S. alba cv.
HN-2 showed high salt tolerance in terms of relative ger-
mination rate, root length, shoot length and fresh seed-
ling weight; B. carinata cv. EJ showed high salt toler-
ance in terms of root length, shoot length and fresh seed-
ling weight but very low salt tolerance in terms relative
germination rate.
Based on our result we suggest that relative shoot
length might be convenient to rank the salt tolerance but
cluster analysis based on multiple parameters of relative
germination rate, root length, shoot length and fresh seed-
ling weight might be more accurate in screening for salt
tolerance in Brassicas and related species.
5. Acknowledgements
This work was supported by funds from NSFC (30771382,
30671334, 30971807, 31201238), an EC FP7 project
ICON (211400), Swedish Research Links project, Wu-
han Science and Technology Bureau and MOST, China.
Thanks are due to Prof. Dr. Jianguo Chen and Dr. Yong
Yang of Hubei University, China, for help with the sta-
tistic analyses.
REFERENCES
[1] V. Chinnusamy, A. Jagendorf and J.-K. Zhu, “Under-
standing and Improving Salt Tolerance in Plants,” Crop
Science, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2005, pp. 437-448.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.0437
[2] S. Yokoi, R. A. Bressan and P. M. Hasegawa, “Salt Stress
Tolerance of Plants,” JIRCAS Working Report, 2002, pp.
25-33.
http://www.plantstress.com/articles/salinity_m/salinity_m
_files/jircas.pdf
[3] F. N. Ponnamieruma, “Role of Cultivar Tolerance in In-
creasing Rice Production on Saline Land,” In: R. C. Sta-
ples and G. H. Toenniessen, Eds., Salinity Tolerance in
Plants-Strategies for Cro p Improvement , Wiley, New York,
1984, pp. 255-271.
[4] I. P Abrol, J. S. P. Yadav and F. I. Massoud, “Salt-Affect-
ed Soils and Their Management,” FAO Soils Bulletin 39,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome, 1988.
[5] Z. Q. Wang, “Salt-Affected Soils in China,” Scientific Press,
Beijing, 1993.
[6] G. Rakow, “Species Origin and Economic Importance of
Brassica. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry,” In:
E. C. Pua and C. J. Douglas, Eds., Brassic a, Springer-Ver-
lag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 54, 2004.
[7] R. S. Purty, G. Kumar, S. L. Singla-Pareek and A. Pareek,
“Towards Salinity Tolerance in Brassica: An Overview,”
Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, Vol. 14, No.
1-2, 2008, pp. 39-49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12298-008-0004-4
[8] M. Ashraf and T. McNeilly, “Salinity Tolerance in Bras-
sica Oilseeds,” Critical Review of Plant Science, Vol. 23,
No. 2, 2004, pp. 157-174.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07352680490433286
[9] Z. Zamani, M. T. Nezami, D. Habibi and M. B. Khorshidi,
“Effect of Quantitative and Qualitative Performance of
Four Canola Cultivars (Brassica napus L.) to Salinity Con-
ditions,” Advances in Environmental Biology, Vol. 4, No.
3, 2010, pp. 422-427.
[10] M. Ashraf, N. Nazir and T. McNeilly, “Comparative Salt
Tolerance of Amphidiploid and Diploid Brassica Spe-
cies,” Plant Science, Vol. 160, No. 4, 2001, pp. 683-689.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00449-0
[11] H. Mahmoodzadeh, “Comparative Study of Tolerant and
Sensitive Cultivars of Brassica napus in Response to Salt
Conditions,” Asian Journal of Plant Science, Vol. 7, No.
6, 2008, pp. 594-598.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2008.594.598
[12] Z. Noreen and M. Ashraf, “Inter and Intra Specific Varia-
tion for Salt Tolerance in Turnip (Brasica rapa) and Rad-
ish (Raphanus sativus L.) at the Initial Groth Satages,”
Pakistan Journal of Botany, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2008, pp.
229-236.
[13] Z. Huang, R.-G. Yang, A. X. Xu, J.-H. Li, R.-W. Lu and
P. Luo, “Effects of Saline Stress on Seed Germination and
Seedling Properties of Three Types’ Rapeseed,” Journal
of Northwest A&F University (Natural Sciences Educa-
tion), Vol. 38, No. 7, 2010, pp. 49-53.
[14] K. Sugimoto, “Evaluation of Salt Tolerance in Japanese
Wild Radishes (Raphanus sativus f. raphanistroides Ma-
kino),” Bulletin of Minamikyushu University, Vol. 39A,
2009, pp. 79-88.
[15] R. Naseri, A. Mirzaei, T. Emami and P. Vafa, “Effect of
Salinity on Germination Stage of Rapeseed Cultivars (Bra-
ssica napus L.),” International Journal of Crop Science,
Vol. 4, No. 13, 2012, pp. 918-922.
[16] V. Rameeh, A. Cherati and F. Abbaszadeh, “Salinity Ef-
fects on Yield, Yield Components and Nutrient Ions in
Rapeseed Genotypes,” Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
Vol. 57, No. 1, 2012, pp. 19-29.

Comparison of Salt Tolerance in Brassicas and Some Related Species 1917
http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/JAS1201019R
[17] P. Sharma, V. Sardana and S. S. Banga, “Salt Tolerance
of Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea) at Germination and
Early Seedling Growth,” Environmental and Experimen-
tal Biology, Vol. 11, 2013, pp. 39-46.
[18] L. Zeng, M. C. Shannon and C. M. Grieve, “Evaluation of
Salt Tolerance in Rice Genotypes by Multiple Agronomic
Parameters,” Euphytica, Vol. 127, No. 2, 2002, pp. 235-
245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1020262932277
[19] S. E. El-Hendawy, Y. Hu, G. M. Yakout, A. M. Awad, S.
E. Hafiz and U. Schmidhalter, “Evaluating Salt Tolerance
of Wheat Genotypes Using Multiple Parameters,” Euro-
pean Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2005, pp. 243-
253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2004.03.002
[20] M. Ashraf, “Organic Substances Responsible for Salt To-
lerance in Eruca sativa,” Plant Biology (Prague), Vol. 36,
No. 2, 1994, pp. 255-259.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02921095
[21] J. Cuartero, M. C. Bolarin, M. J. Asins and V. Moreno,
“Increasing Salt Tolerance in the Tomato,” Journal of
Experimental Botany, Vol. 57, No. 5, 2006, pp. 1045-
1058. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj102
[22] R. S. Malik, “Prospects for Brassica carinata as an Oil-
seed Crop in India,” Experimental Agriculture, Vol. 26,
No. 1, 1990, pp. 125-129.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700015465
[23] T. He and G. R. Cramer, “Growth and Mineral Nutrition
of Six Rapid-Cycling Brassica Species in Response to
Sea Water Salinity,” Plant Soil, Vol. 139, No. 2, 1992, pp.
285-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00009320
[24] D. Kumar, “Salt Tolerance in Oilseed Brassicas-Present Sta-
tus and Future Prospects,” Plant Breeding Abstract, Vol.
65, No. 10, 1995, pp. 1439-1477.
[25] N. Puppala, J. L. Fowler and L. Paindexter, “Evaluation
of Salinity Tolerance of Canola Germination,” In: J. Jan-
ick, Ed., Perspectives on New Crops and New Uses, ASHS
Press, Alexandria, 1999, pp. 251-253.
[26] A. Bybordi, “Effects of Salinity on Yield and Component
Characters in Canola (Brassica napus L.) Cultivars,” No-
tulae Scientia Biologicae Vol. 2, No. 1, 2010, pp. 81-83.
[27] M. Tunuturk, R. Tuncturk, B. Yildirim and V. Ciftci, “Ef-
fect of Salinity Stress on Plant Fresh Weight and Nutrient
Composition of Some Canola (Brassica napus L.) Culti-
vars,” African Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 10, No. 10,
2011, pp. 1827-1832.
[28] L. Zeng, “Exploration of Relationships between Physiolo-
gical Parameters and Growth Performance of Rice (Oryza
sativa L.) Seedlings under Salinity Stress Using Multi-
variate Analysis,” Plant Soil, Vol. 268, No. 1-2, 2005, 51-
59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11104-004-0180-0
[29] S. Cha-um, T. Boriboonkaset, A. Pichakum and C. Kird-
manee, “Multivariate Physiological Indices for Salt Tole-
rance Classification in Indica Rice (Oryza sativa L. Spp.
Indica),” General and Applied Plant Physiology, Vol. 35,
No. 1-2, 2009, pp. 75-87.
[30] S. Ahmad, A. Wahid, E. Rasul and A. Wahid, “Compara-
tive Morphological and Physiological Responses of Green
Gram Genotypes to Salinity Applied at Different Growth
Stages,” Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica, Vol. 46,
No. 2, 2005, pp. 135-142.
[31] M. Juan, R. M. Rivero, L. Romero and J. M. Ruiz, “Eva-
luation of Some Nutritional and Biochemical Indicators in
Selecting Salt-Resistant Tomato Cultivars,” Environmen-
tal and Experimental Botany, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2005, pp.
193-201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2004.07.004
[32] S. Cha-um, S. Chuencharoen, C. Mongkolsiriwatana, M.
Ashraf and C. Kirdmanee, “Screening Sugarcane (Sac-
charum sp.) Genotypes for Salt Tolerance Using Multi-
variate Cluster Analysis,” Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ
Culture, Vol. 110, No. 1, 2012, pp. 23-33.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11240-012-0126-9
[33] Y.-H. Liu, Y. Shen, Z.-D. Chen, Z.-F. Wang and W. Yan,
“Identification of Salt Tolerance in Peanut Varieties/Lines
at the Germination Stage,” Chinese Journal of Oil Crop
Sciences, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2012, pp. 168-173.
[34] S.-Y. Zhu, X.-L. Zhang, T.-K. Luo, Q. Liu, Z. Tang and
Z.-G. Jing, “Comprehensive Evaluation of Salt Tolerance
in Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis L.) dur-
ing Germination Stage,” Journal of Nuclear Agricultural
Sciences, No. 2, 2012, pp. 380-390.
[35] T. Khrais, Y. Leclerc and D. J. Donnelly, “Relative Salin-
ity Tolerance of Potato Cultivars Assessed by in Vitro
Screening,” American Journal of Potato Research, Vol.
75, No. 5, 1998, pp. 207-210.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02854214