## 3 Results
### PEG Stress Tolerance Based on Callus Growth Traits
The numbers given are the average values computed for the six measurements found for control (T0.00), and polyethylene glycol (PEG) concentrations (T0.5, T1.00, and T1.50). Different letters indicate a significant variation between box mean values by [PERSON]’s multiple-range analysis (\(p\leq 0.05\)). A blue dot in the box represents the mean value. Red dots denote the minimum and maximum values, while extreme values (outliers) are depicted as dots outside the whiskers. an indicator for selecting the best genotypes for growth traits [27]. The order of genotypes from PEG resistant > susceptible was White Bazyan > Choman > Shawre > Gwll Swr > Red Bazyan > Kalar for the T0.50 condition; Choman > Shawre > White Bazyan > Red Bazyan > Gwll Swr > Kalar under the T1.0 treatment; and Choman > Shawre > Kalar > White Bazyan > Red Bazyan > Gwll Swr under the T1.50 concentration. For the overall stress conditions, the genotypes' resistance/susceptibility rating according to their callus growth parameters was as follows: PEG resistant > susceptible, Choman > Shawre > White Bazyan > Red Bazyan > Gwll Swr = Kalar (Table 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CI (\%)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CFW (\(\beta\))**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CDW (\(\beta\))**} \\ \hline
**Genotype** & **T0.00** & **T0.50** & **T1.00** & **T1.50** & **T0.00** & **T0.50** & **T1.00** & **T1.50** & **T0.00** & **T0.50** & **T1.00** & **T1.50** \\ \hline Chroman & 86.67 \(\pm\) 3b & 86.67 \(\pm\) 8a & 86.67 \(\pm\) 7a & 13.33 \(\pm\) 3b & 1.18 \(\pm\) 1.07 & 0.89 \(\pm\) 9.0 & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.88 & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.38 & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.38 \\ CWI Swr & 80.00 \(\pm\) 0b & 66.67 \(\pm\) 9a & 53.33 \(\pm\) 3b & 1.01 \(\pm\) 0 & 80.05 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.46 & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.38 \\ Kalar & 73.33 \(\pm\) 3b & 53.33 \(\pm\) 6c & 60.00 \(\pm\) 0b & 40.00 \(\pm\) 1.19 & 1.02 \(\pm\) 0 & 0.90 \(\pm\) 0.80 & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.34 \\ Red Bayzan & 66.67 \(\pm\) 4b & 46.67 \(\pm\) 53.33 \(\pm\) 40.00 & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.67 \(\pm\) 5c & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.40 & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.42 & 0.21 \(\pm\) 0.16 \\ Shaurre & 86.67 \(\pm\) 4b & 86.67 \(\pm\) 8a & 86.67 \(\pm\) 8a & 80.00 \(\pm\) 1.29 & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.91 & 0.58b \(\pm\) 0.52b & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.38 \\ White Bayzan & 100.00 \(\pm\) 0a & 100.00 \(\pm\) 86.67 \(\pm\) 6a & 66.67 \(\pm\) 1.40 & 1.15 \(\pm\) 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.30 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.76 \(\pm\) 0.54 & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.38 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Impact of PEG concentrations on the callus growth parameters in rice genotypes. The statistics provided are the mean values measured for the three measures collected over PEG concentrations (0.00% (T0.00), 0.50% (T0.50), 1.00% (T1.00), and 1.50% (T1.50)) for each genotype. CI: Callus Induction, CFW: Callus Fresh Weight, CDW: and Callus Dry Weight. The common letters within a column suggest no major variation between mean values, according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (\(p\leq 0.05\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CL (\(\mu\))**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CW (\(\mu\))**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**CWT (\(\mu\))**} \\ \hline
**Genotype** & **T0.00** & **T0.50** & **T1.00** & **T1.50** & **T0.00** & **T1.00** & **T1.50** & **T0.00** & **T0.50** & **T1.00** & **T1.50** \\ \hline Choman & 38.90 \(\pm\) 0b & 33.50 \(\pm\) 3a & 31.07 \(\pm\) 2a & 29.47 \(\pm\) 4a & 26.37 \(\pm\) 3b & 19.77 \(\pm\) 4a & 16.20 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 2.43 \(\pm\) 2.90 \(\pm\) 3.33 a \\ GWI Swr & 33.57 \(\pm\) 0c & 29.77 \(\pm\) 17 & 16.10 \(\pm\) 17 & 17.83 \(\