## 3 Results
### Effect of Salt Stress on the Relationship between the Miotic Index and Cell Vacuolization
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variant**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Time (b)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**NaCl-mM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Number of**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Chromosomal**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Abomenal Cells**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Irregular Movement**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Chromosomes**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sidy**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Isolated**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Lagging**} \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{V1} & 24 & 0 & 25 \(\pm\) 0.17 & **0.96 \(\pm\) 0.17** & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\circ}\) & - & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-10}  & 48 & 0 & 20 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\circ}\) & - & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-10}  & 72 & 0 & 30 \(\pm\) 0.16 & **1.34 \(\pm\) 0.16** & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.64 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\circ}\) & - & - & - & - \\ \cline{2-10}  & 24 & 100 & 65 \(\pm\) 0.12 & **2.39 \(\pm\) 0.12** \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\circ}\) & - & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ \cline{2-10}  & 48 & 100 & 115 \(\pm\) 0.32 & **4.32 \(\pm\) 0.32** \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.7 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ \cline{2-10}  & 72 & 100 & 134 \(\pm\) 0.25 & **4.96 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\circ}\)** \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.44 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.77 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.42 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ \cline{2-10}  & 24 & 125 & 141 \(\pm\) 0.43 & **5.56 \(\pm\) 0.47** \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.97 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\circ}\) & 2.32 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.57 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.55 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ \cline{2-10}  & 48 & 125 & 185 \(\pm\) 0.37 & **6.63 \(\pm\) 0.37** \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\circ}\) & 2.61 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.61 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ \cline{2-10}  & 72 & 125 & 254 \(\pm\) 0.65 & **9.31 \(\pm\) 0.65** \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.46 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\circ}\) & 3.48 \(\pm\) 0.3 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.73 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.33 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.24 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.24 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\circ}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{V4} & 24 & 150 & 206 \(\pm\) 0.62 & **7.50 \(\pm\) 0.62 \({}^{\circ}\)** & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\circ}\) & 3.15 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.19 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\circ}\) & 1.15 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\circ}\) & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}  
From our comparative analyses, the vacuolization index and chromosomal aberration index showed significantly different values between the treated samples and the control samples in the 24-72-h time interval (Figure 3). On the other hand, the increase in the percentage of chromosomal aberrations was also accompanied by an increase in the vacuolization index, both increasing with the salt concentration and time interval. Thus, we can say that there is a close link between the increases in the vacuolization index and chromosomal aberration index, where cell vacuolization represents the maximum cytotoxic effect, since the vacuolized cell can no longer maintain the formation of the cell division spindle. This is sometimes evidenced by the circular movements of other chromosomes and the consequent inhibition of plant development.