## 3 Results and Discussion
### Variations of Agro-Morphological Traits
#### 3.1.1 Qualitative Agronomical Traits
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Trait** & **Category** & **Min** & **Max** & **Mean** & **SD** & **CV (\%)** & **Skewness** & **Kurtosis** \\ \hline DH (days) & Population & 166.00 & 213.00 & 181.35 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 7.94 & 4.38 & 1.06 & 1.54 \\  & Control & 173.00 & 180.00 & 176.60 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.94 & 1.66 & & \\ DM (days) & Population & 198.00 & 238.00 & 213.18 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.55 & 3.07 & 1.26 & 2.24 \\  & Control & 206.00 & 215.00 & 209.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.10 & 1.48 & & \\ DHM (days) & Population & 16.00 & 45.00 & 31.82 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.77 & 11.85 & \(-\)0.22 & 1.14 \\  & Control & 28.00 & 35.00 & 32.40 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.42 & 7.46 & & \\ CL (cm) & Population & 23.23 & 127.33 & 74.50 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 15.01 & 20.15 & \(-\)0.50 & 1.41 \\  & Control & 39.50 & 72.00 & 59.30 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 13.24 & 22.33 & & \\ SL (cm) & Population & 3.00 & 14.40 & 6.73 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.08 & 30.93 & 0.69 & 0.37 \\  & Control & 3.10 & 5.90 & 4.58 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.93 & 20.30 & & \\ AL (mm) & Population & 0.00 & 21.30 & 10.72 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.32 & 40.31 & \(-\)0.37 & \(-\)0.04 \\  & Control & 5.43 & 13.67 & 9.78 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.71 & 27.76 & & \\ GPP (\(n\)) & Population & 10.40 & 67.40 & 35.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 13.60 & 38.72 & 0.16 & \(-\)1.05 \\  & Control & 25.60 & 52.00 & 43.84 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 9.51 & 21.70 & & \\ TGW (g) & Population & 3.00 & 68.00 & 43.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 12.65 & 29.39 & \(-\)1.24 & 2.22 \\  & Control & 30.40 & 45.00 & 36.76 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.96 & 13.48 & & \\ \hline \(\beta\)-GL & Population & 0.14 & 7.67 & 3.69 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.12 & 30.44 & \(-\)0.64 & 3.48 \\ (g/100 g) & Control & 3.75 & 8.41 & 4.85 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.79 & 36.87 & & \\ TPC & Population & 1.79 & 6.97 & 2.97 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.66 & 22.09 & 2.32 & 9.90 \\ (mg GAE/g) & Control & 2.91 & 4.00 & 3.37 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.41 & 12.10 & & \\ ABTS & Population & 3.07 & 13.54 & 5.46 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 1.16 & 21.23 & 1.89 & 7.52 \\ (mg AAE/100 g) & Control & 5.71 & 8.88 & 6.84 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.16 & 16.97 & & \\ DPPH & Population & 1.56 & 6.24 & 2.64 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.45 & 17.22 & 1.84 & 11.02 \\ (mg AAE/g) & Control & 2.98 & 5.67 & 3.85 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.99 & 25.62 & & \\ RP & Population & 1.31 & 7.86 & 2.65 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.56 & 21.03 & 2.87 & 20.43 \\ (mg AAE/g) & Control & 3.12 & 5.55 & 3.95 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.88 & 22.33 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Different superscript letters in a column within a category indicate significantly different means based on [PERSON]’s multiple range test (\(p<0.05\)). ABTS: ABTS\({}^{**}\) scavenging activity, AL: Awn length, CL: Culm length, DH: Days to heading, DM: days to maturity, DHM: Days from heading to maturity, DPPH: DPPH\({}^{\text{a}}\) scavenging activity, GPP: Number of grains per panicle, RP: Reducing power, SL: Spike length, TGW: One-thousand grains weight, TPC: Total phenolic content, \(\beta\)-GL: \(\beta\)-glucan content.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Statistics of quantitative agronomical characteristics in global barley accessions cultivated in Korea. among the barley accessions could offer various options for selecting genotypes with desired properties. The observed wide variance could also be a valuable input for future molecular-level analysis [20; 22; 28]. In addition to these morphological traits, the variations in cold damage and lodging rate among the barley accessions were also similarly analyzed. Approximately 43% of the population exhibited semi-resistance (21-40%) to cold damage, while another 37% demonstrated full resistance (<20%). Among the control cultivars, only Saechalssalbori displayed semi-resistance, while the others were resistant (Table 1). Interestingly, three barley accessions, namely B-205 from Portugal, D-55 from Iran, and Chungnammonsan from Korea, showed no signs of cold damage (0%). On the other hand, three accessions, including Shirok Kapo from India, PI 328521 from Greece, and E 517/3 from Ethiopia, suffered severe damage (>81%) (Table S2).