Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

of weed eoneee I without inj ury 'to .t(llll8toes was in the TU1am treated plot ••
Although no yield reoords were ta~.n it was thousht tha~ yields in the best
plots would have been good.
The results ln the transp1ant.a tomato exper~ ls presented in table
2. All chemicals B1gnificant1y increased weed control as compared to the
untreated check. The best weed C0l1tro1 wes in plots treated with Diphen-,
amid at 6 and 9 1bs. per acre, Stam P-34 at 6 1bl. per acre, Prometryne at
3 1bs. per acre, Casoron at 4%lb•• per acre and Tl11e. at 6 1bs. per acre.
145
Only two harvests were made and only ripe marketole fruit taken for
record. Plots treated with Dlphenamid at 9 1bs. per acre and Tl11am at 4".
1bs. per acre had a significant l~rease in yield as compared to the untreated
check,plot. The yleld from'the plots treated with the chemical
Stam P-34 at 6 lbs • per aCre appro~hed B1gn1fiC8ftee.
OONCL1!SION
In the direct seeded tomato ezpertment, it 100ke at this ttme that
chemicals .cou1d replace other mathods of weed control in the plant row.
If this is 't~ue, direct seeding of Cpmatoes is a possibility in Pennly1­
vania. The beltareatments wereDlpbenemid at 6 and 9 lbs. per acre in a
pre-emergence application and Ti11am at 6 1bl. per acre in a pre-planting
loi1 incorporation treatment.
" I
In the transplanted tomato experiment, the outstanding chemicals
were Dipbenamid in the post-plantiPi treatment. Ti11~ ~n the pre-p1aneing
soil incorporation treatment and Stam P-34 in the delayed post-planting
treatment.