Table 4.
Summary of QTL identified using CIM method for plant recovery (REC), percentage of survived plants and electrolyte leakage (EL) from leaves after plant freezing
| QTL name | QTL name | Trait-experiment | Flanking markers | Interval/position (cM) | LOD | R2 (%)a | Addb | Favorable allelec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qel.hm-7A-1.4 | Qfr.hm-7A.1 | EL-3 | wPt-6668(4)-wPt9207(2) | 27.5–38.3 | 3.1 | 9.5 | − 5.5 | M |
| Qrec.hm-7A-1.4 | REC-2 | wPt-6668(4)-wPt-6824(2) | 27.5–57.2 | 2.6 | 6.9 | 6.6 | H | |
| REC-3 | wPt-0393-wPt-6824(2) | 36.2–57.2 | 2.5 | 9.2 | 6.5 | H | ||
| Qel.hm-7A-2.1 | Qel.hm-7A.2 | EL-2 | tPt-513624-tPt-2230(2) | 8.9–19.9 | 2.6 | 8.7 | 8.1 | H |
| EL-3 | tPt-513624-wPt-1961 | 8.9–19.3 | 4.1 | 13.0 | 6.4 | H | ||
| Qrec.hm-1B.1 | Qrec.hm.1B.1 | REC-3 | wPt-5899(3) | 79.9 | 2.5 | 8.2 | 6.7 | H |
| Qrec.hm-2B.1 | Qrec.hm-2B.1 | REC-3 | wPt-9402(4)-wPt-1920 | 36.3–46.1 | 2.9 | 10.4 | 7.2 | H |
| Qel.hm-4R.1 | Qel.hm-4R.1 | EL-2 | rPt-389466-rPt-389872(5) | 9.8–16.5 | 6.5 | 22.8 | 18.7 | H |
| EL-3 | rPt-389466-rPt-389872(5) | 9.8–16.5 | 2.5 | 7.7 | 4.9 | H | ||
| Qrec.hm-4R.1 | Qrec.hm-4R.2 | REC-1 | tPt-402470-rPt402563(5) | 22.6–25.2 | 3.5 | 12.9 | -0.8 | M |
| Qrec.hm-4R.2 | Qrec.hm-4R.3 | REC-3 | tPt-402443(4) | 57.2 | 3.0 | 10.8 | − 10.8 | M |
| Qrec.hm-5R.1 | Qrec.hm-5R.1 | REC-2 | rPt-508323(2)-tPt-390596(4) | 22.2–26.5 | 2.5 | 6.3 | − 6.9 | M |
| Qel.hm-5R.1 | Qel.hm-5R.2 | EL-3 | wmc289-rPt-506350(10) | 32.0–32.9 | 2.5 | 5.0 | 6.8 | H |
aR2 (%), the percentage of phenotypic variance explained by the QTL
bAdd, additive effects of QTL expressed in the trait unit
cFavorable allele for each QTL: H, cv. Hewo and M, cv. Magnat