Talk:Deficit irrigation

neologism?

• regarding the neologism: please note that the first, often cited research review on this topic dates from 1990 (English, 1990)

134.58.253.57 (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• On the comment of dealing with a neologism: almost all researchers dealing with agricultural water management will disagree on this fact. We are dealing with a very specific technique of irrigation, which these days is gaining importance at a very fast rate (Mediterranean, USA, Middle East,...). Googling for 'deficit irrigation', or typing 'deficit irrigation' in any Scientific Publishers search engine (http:www.sciencedirect.com; http://www.springerlink.com/home/main.mpx; http://apps.isiknowledge.com) will give a very quick idea of this statement. Considering the worldwide number of researchers involved in this technique, wikipedia should have a page explaining this irrigation strategy

Samgeerts (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• also check http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y3655E/y3655e00.htm

Samgeerts (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• added international organizations that work on deficit irrigation to corroborate the page

Samgeerts (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• added european project (in which we are not involved!) under the external links section to show the growing interest in this strategy

Samgeerts (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dear,

I am slightly surprised to read that 'deficit irrigation' has been qualified as a neologism. I am heading a research development program on integrated water management for irrigation in the South-western part of Burkina Faso (Kou watershed holding the second largest city of Burkina Faso, Bobo-Dioulasso).

Nevertheless the abundance on water through sources, an exploitable water table, a perennial water course and a sub-humid rainy season, most water users find themselves regularly faced to water shortages due to an increase in population, low irrigation efficiencies and lack of mutual respect. Those water shortages are extremely well felt on a downstream 1.2000 ha state-run irrigation scheme specialized on rice production.

Several steps have been undertaken by the program and the local stakeholders to boost up the water use efficiencies on this perimeter. A cold spell returning each month of December limited the possibilities on playing on the planting calendar as rice doesn't support cold. For two years now, we've 'experimenting' on 'deficit irrigation' techniques after having read about this possibility in several scientific articles, mainly the ones cited already on this Wikipedia page. This approach allowed each of the farmers their annual amount of irrigation doses, unfortunately slightly less than really needed but nevertheless returning a lesser but satisfying yield, and a high water use efficiency. An article on our findings and those of the farmers, whose consented with the approach, will be due end 2009, but our activities can already be followed on the programs website http://www.ge-eau.org.

Joost Wellens (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

neutral/point of view?

• Please note that all of the cited literature documents high quality research from different authors, published in international, peer reviewed scientific journals. By adding more hyperlinks to the references, I want to put emphasis on the fact that all literature is verifiable.
• regarding the disputed neutrality: a lot of constraints are also mentioned, with reliable citations.

134.58.253.57 (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Independent reference added: Fereres and Soriano, 2007
• Section with "experiences for different crops was re-written in a more neutral way + an example (+reference) of cases where DI does not provide the best solution added + first, somewhat 'trendy' or 'essay-like' sentence was removed from the article

Samgeerts (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• section on 'reasons for increased.....' has been re-written to be more neutral

Samgeerts (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

POV

I'm not sure about the neologism part, but I can see how this got the POV tag: It reads like we're promoting DI here in this article, only talking about its advantages, and how it can improve things. It's not an article just saying what it is, why people might use it or why they might not. At least this article is well referenced. Hires an editor (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"only talking about its advantages, and how it can improve things."... Please refer to the section 'Constraints' and to the section with examples for different crops, where disadvantages are discussed, and where crops are mentioned for which the practice doesn't work. 134.58.253.57 (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)