Journal of Crop Science and Biotechnology

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 33–37 | Cite as

Assessment of genetic divergence in salt tolerance of soybean (Glycine max L.) genotypes

  • M. A. MannanEmail author
  • M. A. Karim
  • Q. A. Khaliq
  • M. M. Haque
  • M. A. K. Mian
  • J. U. Ahmed


A large number of soybean (Glycine max L.) genotypes of diverse growth habit and adaptive characters were used in the experiment. Soil salinity-induced changes in nine morpho-physiological characters of 30-day-old seedlings of 170 soybean genotypes were compared in the study. The first and second principal components (PC) of principal component analysis (PCA) results accounted for 97 and 2.5%, respectively, of the total variations of soybean genotypes. The variation for the first PC was composed mainly of relative total dry weight (DW), relative shoot dry weight, as well as petiole dry weight. There were four clusters distinguished in the cluster analysis. The genotypes in cluster IV performed better in respect to relative total dry weight and relative shoot dry weight and hence having salt tolerance. The genotypes clusters III performed very poorly and those of clusters II and I were moderate to poor. D2 analysis indicated that the clusters differed significantly from each other. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) again asserts strongly that more than 92% of the genotypes were correctly assigned to clusters. Both PCA and DFA confirmed that the relative total DW followed by shoot and petiole DW were the major discriminatory variables, and the root DW were the secondary important variables to distinguish genotypes into groups. In this study, multivariate analyses were used in identifying the soybean genotypes of desirable traits for salt tolerance.

Key words

divergence genotypes salt tolerance soybean 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashraf M, McNeilly T. 1987. Salinity effects on five cultivars / lines of pearl millet (Pennisetum americammum (L). Plant Soil 103: 13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bansal UK, Saivi RG, Rani NS, Kaur A. 1999. Genetic diver gence in quality rice. Oryza 36(1): 20–23Google Scholar
  3. Cordovilla MP, Ocana A, Ligero F, Lluch C. 1995. Salinity effects on growth analysis and nutrient composition in four grain legumes-Rhizobium symbiosis. J. Plant Nutr. 18: 1595–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization). 2005Google Scholar
  5. Hedge SG, Patil CS. 2000. Genetic divergence in rainfed rice. Karnataka J. Agril. Sci. 13(3): 549–553Google Scholar
  6. Jha SK, Awasthi IP, Maurya DM. 1999. Genetic divergence in wild rice germplasm of eastern U. P. India. Oryza 36(20): 157–158Google Scholar
  7. Kelley DB, Norlyn JD, Epstein E. 1979. Salt tolerant crops and saline water: Resources for arid lands. 326–344. In JR Goodin, DK Northlington, eds, Proc. Int. Arid Lands Conf. Plant Resources, Lubbock, TX. 8–15 Oct. 1978. Texas Tech. Univ. Press, LubbockGoogle Scholar
  8. Kingsbury RW, Epstein E. 1984. Selection for salt resistant spring wheat. Crop Sci. 24: 310–315Google Scholar
  9. Maas EV, Hoffman GJ. 1977. Crop salt tolerance-current assess ment. J. Irrig. Drainage Div., ASCE 103(IR2): 115–134Google Scholar
  10. Munns R, James RA. 2003. Screening methods for salinity toler ance: a case study with tetraploid wheat. Plant Soil 253: 201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Munns R, Termaat A. 1986. Whole plant responses to salinity. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 13: 143–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Munns R, Hussain S, Rivelli AR, James RA, Condon AG, Lindsay MP, Lagudah ES, Schachtman DP, Hare RA. 2002. Avenues for increasing salt tolerance of crops, and the role of physiologically based selection traits. Plant Soil 247: 93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pradhan K, Roy A. 1990. Genetic divergence in rice. Oryza 27: 415–418Google Scholar
  14. Reddy MP, Vora AB. 1986. Changes in pigment composition, Hill reaction activity and Saccharides metabolism in Bajra (Pennisetum typhoides) leaves under NaCl salinity. Photosynthetica (Praha)Google Scholar
  15. Rojas W, Barriga P, Figueroa H. 2000. Multivariate analysis of the genetic diversity of Bolivian quinua germplasm. Plant Gen. Res. Newsl. 122: 16–23Google Scholar
  16. Singh SP, Gutieerrez JA, Molina A, Urrea C, Gepts P. 1991. Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean: marker-based analysis of morphological and agronomic traits. Crop Sci. 31: 23–29Google Scholar
  17. Zaman TM, Bakri DA. 2003. Dryland salinity and rising water table in the Mulyan creek Catchment, Australia. The University of Sydney Orange Leeds Parade, Orange, NSW 2800, AustraliaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Korean Society of Crop Science and Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. Mannan
    • 1
    Email author
  • M. A. Karim
    • 2
  • Q. A. Khaliq
    • 2
  • M. M. Haque
    • 2
  • M. A. K. Mian
    • 3
  • J. U. Ahmed
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of AgronomyPatuakhali Science and Technology UniversityDumki, PatuakhaliBangladesh
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyBangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural UniversityGazipurBangladesh
  3. 3.Department of Genetics and Plant BreedingBangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural UniversityGazipurBangladesh
  4. 4.Department of Crop BotanyBangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural UniversityGazipurBangladesh

Personalised recommendations