Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-29T14:58:38.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Response of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Cultivars to Metobromuron

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Soon J. Park
Agriculture Canada Research Station, Harrow, Ontario, Canada NOR 1G0
Allan S. Hamill
Agriculture Canada Research Station, Harrow, Ontario, Canada NOR 1G0


Metobromuron is a major preemergence herbicide controlling mainly broadleaf weeds in common bean production in Ontario. Rainstorms at the seedling stage may splash metobromuron on the plants which results in serious injury, reduced plant stand, and low seed yield. This study determined the appropriate rates of metobromuron for identification of germplasm tolerant to the herbicide. Metobromuron of 0, 0.28, and 0.56 kg ai ha−1 in the glasshouse and 0, 0.28, 0.42, and 0.56 kg ha−1 in the field were applied POST at the unifoliolate stage of 30 bean cultivars. A significant linear effect of herbicide rate on plant injury and recovery was detected. Plant growth was reduced significantly on sensitive cultivars. Two cultivars, Taylor Hort’ and ‘UI 51’, and several plant introductions were tolerant to metobromuron. A rate range of 0.42 to 0.56 kg ha−1 of metobromuron would be appropriate to separate tolerant from sensitive bean lines.

Copyright © 1993 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1992. Guide to weed control. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Publ. 75. 208 p.Google Scholar
2. Csatári-Szüts, K. and Báliant, I. 1974. Chemical weed control in snap bean production. Zöldsegtermeaztes 6:312. [Hortic. Abstr. 44(5):3218].Google Scholar
3. El-Afifi, S. and Lâng, F. 1981. Influence of metobromuron and chlorobromuron on the pigments of chloroplast and the photosynthetic activity of bean and pea seedlings. Proc. 21st Hung. Annu. Meet. Biochem., Veszprem. p. 49.Google Scholar
4. Friesen, G. H. 1979. Protection of snap beans from substituted urea injury by prior treatment with dinitroaniline herbicides. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59:535537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Jürgens, G. 1973. Weed control in legumes in the Dominican Republic. Symp. Arbeitsgruppe Unkrautprobleme Warmer Klimate in Arbeitskreis Horbologie der DPG., Stuttgart-Hohenheim, 1972. Berichte aus der Abteilung für Herbologie an der Universitat Hohenheim 4:511.Google Scholar
6. Lipska, M. and Dobrzański, A. 1978. Response of a few cultivars of snap bean to urea herbicides. Biulatyn Warzyqniczy 21:167180.Google Scholar
7. Lyubenov, Y. and Geshev, M. 1971. Influence of climatic factors on the susceptibility of certain field bean cultivars to some soil herbicides. Rastnivod Nauki 8:133147. [Hortic. Abstr. 54:43540].Google Scholar
8. Mehwalk, J. 1973. Dwarf french bean varieties and their reaction to Phaseolus virus and herbicides. Gemüse 8:171173.Google Scholar
9. Park, S. J. 1985. Growing field beans in Canada. Agric. Canada Publ. 1787/E. 30 p.Google Scholar
10. Rouanet, G. 1972. Advantages and disadvantages of using a preemergence herbicide (metobromuron) in beans at Awassa, Ethiopia. Agronomic Tropicale 27:239248.Google Scholar
11. Templeman;, R. 1991. Direct harvest—Is it for you? The Emerging Bean. Ontario Bean Producers' Marketing Board, Summer 1991:10.Google Scholar