Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Effect of Different Concentration and Application Method of Zinc on Yield of Chickpea (Pisum Sativum L.)

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Zinc sulfate at 0.5% foliar or 8 kg/ha irrigation gave the highest chickpea seed yield and protein in a two-year semi-arid field trial.

desk verdict A sloppy field trial whose crop identity is internally contradictory—the paper says chickpea but names Pisum sativum throughout—and the statistics are too incomplete to check. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23855 v1 pith:RML5QMHC submitted 2025-05-29 q-bio.OT

Samaneh Goodarzi , Ali Tavanmand , Hamed Shajari This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.OT
keywords zincsulfatefoliarsprayirrigationapplicationchickpeaseedyieldproteinphytotoxicitysemi-aridagriculture
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish a practical zinc fertilizer rate for chickpea under semi-arid conditions: two applications of 0.5% ZnSO4 as a foliar spray or 8 kg/ha via irrigation give the top seed yield and protein content in a Zn-responsive year. It also claims that zinc works through reproductive physiology, namely better pollen viability and stigma receptivity, and that too much zinc, around 0.4% foliar, hurts yield through phytotoxicity. The result matters because calcareous, high-pH soils in dry regions commonly limit zinc availability, so a tested rate and method could improve both yield and protein for growers. A caution runs through the paper: the crop is repeatedly named Pisum sativum L., the garden pea, which is not the same species as chickpea (Cicer arietinum), so the recommendation's target species is uncertain.

What carries the argument

The mechanism carrying the argument is zinc's control of reproductive development. The paper holds that adequate Zn promotes sporogenous tissue, pollen grain production, pollen viability, and stigma receptivity, and that these improvements translate directly into more pods and heavier seeds; it also works through nitrogen metabolism and protein synthesis. The toxicity side of the same mechanism sets an upper bound: foliar doses above the optimum, such as 0.4%, are absorbed quickly and push leaf zinc toward the 300 to 1000 µg g⁻¹ range where yield falls.

What would settle it

Sequence a barcode gene such as matK or rbcL from the experimental plants, or inspect mature pods and seeds to confirm the species. If the plants are Pisum sativum rather than Cicer arietinum, or if a true chickpea trial with the same treatments shows no yield or protein gain from 0.5% foliar ZnSO4 and 8 kg/ha irrigation ZnSO4, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that under the calcareous, semi-arid conditions of Kerman, Iran, zinc sulfate applied twice after emergence significantly changes chickpea yield and quality in a Zn-responsive year. In year one, the best seed yield and protein came from foliar 0.5% ZnSO4 and from 8 kg/ha ZnSO4 in irrigation water, with leaf zinc highest at 16 kg/ha irrigation and 0.1% foliar. The paper attributes these gains to zinc's role in pollen viability, stigma receptivity, gametogenesis, and nitrogen metabolism, and attributes the lower performance of 0.4% foliar Zn to phytotoxicity. In year two, no treatment differed significantly, which the authors explain by favorable weather conditions that reduced Zn deficiency pressure. The conclusion offers these rates as practical recommendations for semi-arid chickpea production.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the experimental plants are chickpea, even though the title and text call them Pisum sativum L., the garden pea; if the species label is wrong, the yield and protein responses belong to a different crop.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Under semi-arid, high-pH soil conditions, growers can expect the highest seed yield and protein when ZnSO4 is applied twice after emergence at 0.5% foliar or 8 kg/ha through irrigation.
  • Exceeding the optimum, as in the 0.4% foliar treatment, reduces yield, so zinc programs need dose control to avoid phytotoxicity.
  • Zinc's effect on yield runs through reproductive traits, more viable pollen, better stigma receptivity, and improved pod and seed set, so the benefit is most visible when reproduction is otherwise Zn-limited.
  • When a season's weather softens Zn deficiency, as in year two, the same treatments may show no significant yield advantage, meaning annual blanket applications are not warranted without a deficiency diagnosis.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the paper calls chickpea Pisum sativum L., which is taxonomically the garden pea, the practical recommendations should be treated as provisional until the species used in the Kerman trial is confirmed; the same data may actually describe pea, not chickpea, responses.
  • The second-year null result implies a testable prediction: zinc fertilization should matter most in seasons with cool, wet, or otherwise Zn-limiting conditions, and a reanalysis using soil DTPA-extractable Zn and seasonal temperature could confirm that weather-driven masking.
  • The dose-response pattern suggests an optimum near 8 kg/ha soil or 0.5% foliar zinc, so a follow-up trial with intermediate foliar doses (0.3% and 0.4%) and leaf zinc measurements would locate the toxicity threshold more precisely and separate deficiency correction from luxury uptake.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a two-season field trial in Kerman, Iran, testing zinc sulfate applied by foliar spray or irrigation to a crop it repeatedly identifies as chickpea (Pisum sativum L.). The abstract and conclusion claim that foliar 0.5% ZnSO4 and irrigation at 8 kg/ha significantly increased seed yield, protein content, and leaf zinc concentration, with a second-year null result attributed to favorable climate. The manuscript is framed as providing practical zinc-fertilizer recommendations for semi-arid chickpea production.

Significance. If the findings were valid, the paper could offer a simple, inexpensive recommendation for zinc fertilization in a major food legume. However, the manuscript's central claim is undermined by a fundamental species misidentification (Pisum sativum is garden pea, not chickpea, Cicer arietinum), by a methods section that describes six treatments but lists eight, by the absence of any reported seed-yield data, and by statistical reporting that omits all inferential details. The strengths of the paper are limited to a plausible soil-testing protocol and a clear statement of the hypothesis, but these cannot compensate for the load-bearing errors.

major comments (6)
  1. [Title and Introduction] The manuscript identifies the experimental crop as 'chickpea (Pisum sativum L.)' in the title, abstract, introduction, and conclusion, but Pisum sativum is the garden pea; chickpea is Cicer arietinum. The introduction's description of origins, leading producer countries, and cited literature concerns peas, not chickpeas. Because the entire agronomic recommendation is aimed at chickpea growers, this species misidentification invalidates the central claim and cannot be fixed by a simple typographical correction.
  2. [Material and Methods, 'Experimental Design and Location'] The Methods state that the experiment used '6 treatments' but then enumerate eight treatments (T1–T8), including a control, three irrigation rates, and four foliar rates. With three replications, a six-treatment design would require 18 plots and an eight-treatment design 24 plots. The reported plot dimensions and replication cannot be reconciled with either design, so the experimental layout is unverifiable.
  3. [Results and Discussion, Table 2] The paper's headline claim is that foliar 0.5% ZnSO4 and irrigation at 8 kg/ha produced the highest seed yield, but Table 2 reports only number of seeds per pod and weight of seeds per pod, not seed yield (e.g., kg/ha or t/ha). No yield values are presented anywhere in the manuscript, so the central agronomic conclusion is not supported by any reported data.
  4. [Data Collection and Analysis, Tables 2–3] The Methods state that ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test were used, but the results contain no F values, degrees of freedom, mean squares, standard errors, or Duncan grouping letters. The abstract claims 'significant differences' in yield and yield components, but without inferential statistics the reader cannot assess whether the observed mean differences are statistically meaningful or merely numerical.
  5. [Results and Discussion, protein and leaf Zn paragraphs] The text states that the maximum seed protein content was in Treatment Three (8 kg/ha irrigation) and the highest foliar-spray protein was in Treatment Seven (0.5% foliar), but Table 2 shows T6 (0.5% foliar) with the highest protein value (24.87%) overall and among foliar treatments. The text also states that the highest leaf Zn concentration was obtained with 8 kg/ha (T3) and, among foliar treatments, with 0.1% (T7), but Table 2 shows T7 with the highest leaf Zn (62 mg/kg) and T5 (60 mg/kg) higher than T3 (58 mg/kg). These contradictions make the reported findings internally inconsistent.
  6. [Results and Discussion, second-year paragraph] The absence of significant differences in the second year is attributed to 'favorable climatic conditions,' but no climate data, statistical comparison between years, or independent evidence is provided. This post hoc explanation uses the null result itself as support for the proposed climatic mechanism, which is not a valid inference and leaves the year-to-year inconsistency unresolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Crop terminology is inconsistent: 'chickpea,' 'chicken pea,' 'garden pea,' and 'pea' are used interchangeably. This is not merely stylistic—it reflects the underlying taxonomic confusion.
  2. [Table 1] Soil properties are reported with inconsistent units: electrical conductivity is given as 2.36 without units, available N is reported as 56%, which is implausibly high for soil nitrogen, and the texture components (sand 42.2%, silt 40.3%, 'loam' 12.5%) sum to only 95%, with no clay fraction.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'excessive Zn application (e.g., 0.4% Zn)' and '0.4% Zn' as a treatment, but the Methods list T8 as 0.4% foliar, which is consistent; however, the abstract nowhere reconciles the 'six treatments' statement with the eight listed treatments.
  4. [Introduction and References] Several citations are incomplete or missing from the reference list, including 'Munns, et al., 2006' and 'Ruiz Carrasco, et al., 2011,' which are cited in the results discussion but not listed among the references.
  5. [Material and Methods, coordinates] The reported experimental coordinates (30°55′57″N, 50°39′18″E) do not correspond to Kerman, Iran, which is approximately 30.28°N, 57.08°E; this discrepancy should be checked against the actual field location.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the yield and protein conclusions are direct comparisons of measured treatment means, with no fitted parameters, model-derived predictions, or load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper is a field experiment, not a modeling or derivation paper. The central claims—that foliar 0.5% ZnSO4 and irrigation 8 kg/ha ZnSO4 gave the highest seed yield and protein—are stated as direct readings of the Duncan mean comparisons in Table 2. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then used to 'predict' a closely related quantity; no equation connects an input to an output by construction; and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force a choice. The visible problems are correctness and reporting flaws, not circularity: the crop is misidentified as chickpea (Pisum sativum L., which is actually garden pea), the Methods say '6 treatments' while enumerating 8, and several text statements about Table 2 contradict the table's values. These are serious but do not make the derivation circular. The second-year null result is explained post hoc by 'favorable climatic conditions,' but that is an interpretive claim with no formal derivation that reduces to its own input. Since none of the enumerated circularity patterns is instantiated with quotable evidence of a reduction, the honest finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. Its conclusions rest on three assumptions: correct species identification, a zinc-limited site, and a post hoc climatic explanation for the null second season.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The plant species studied is chickpea (Cicer arietinum), identified in the paper as Pisum sativum L.
    The title and throughout use Pisum sativum L., which is garden pea, not chickpea. If the taxonomic identity is wrong, the agronomic recommendations do not apply to chickpea.
  • domain assumption Zinc was the limiting nutrient in the first season.
    No soil zinc was measured in Table 1, so the treatment response is assumed rather than demonstrated to be a correction of zinc deficiency.
  • ad hoc to paper No treatment differences in the second year are explained by favorable climate.
    The explanation is post hoc and no corresponding weather data or soil analysis is provided to support it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of Different Concentration and Application Method of Zinc on Yield of Chickpea (Pisum Sativum L.)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RML5QMHC

@misc{pith2026250523855,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of Different Concentration and Application Method of Zinc on Yield of Chickpea (Pisum Sativum L.)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RML5QMHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23855}
}
read the original abstract

This study evaluated the impact of Zinc (Zn) supplementation on the growth, yield, and seed quality of chickpea (Pisum sativum L.) under the semi-arid conditions of Kerman, Iran, across two growing seasons (2021-2022). A randomized complete block design was used with six treatments, including varying concentrations of zinc sulphate applied via foliar spraying (0.1%, 0.25%, 0.5%) or irrigation (4, 8, 16 kg/ha), each applied twice-one and two months after greening. Results from the first year revealed significant differences in yield and yield components across treatments. The highest seed yield and protein content were achieved with foliar application of 0.5% and irrigation application of 8 kg/ . Zinc application enhanced reproductive processes, including pollen viability and stigma receptivity, leading to improved pod and seed attributes. However, excessive Zn application (e.g., 0.4% Zn) resulted in reduced plant performance, likely due to phytotoxicity. Leaf Zn concentration was significantly higher with 16 kg/ha applied via irrigation, while foliar applications at 0.1% also increased Zn uptake efficiently. The second growing season, however, showed no significant differences in traits across treatments, which was attributed to favorable climatic conditions mitigating Zn deficiency. Zn deficiency remains a critical challenge globally, particularly in calcareous and nutrient depleted soils, adversely affecting plant metabolism, root development, and nitrogen pathways. This study underscores the importance of optimizing Zn supplementation strategies to enhance yield and quality while avoiding toxicity. Findings provide practical recommendations for addressing Zn deficiencies in semi-arid cropping systems, offering valuable insights for sustainable chickpea production

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    www.sask.pulse.com/ produce research project

    Saskatchewan Pulse Growers (2000) Unlocking the bioavailability of phosphorus and micronutrient through development of low phytate phosphorus Pea. www.sask.pulse.com/ produce research project

    work page 2000

  2. [2]

    Food Chem 221: 1514-1521

    Raghunathan R, Hoover R, Waduge R, Liu Q, Warkentin TD (2017) Impact of Molecular Structure on the Physicochemical Properties of Starches Isolated from Different Field Pea (Pisum sativum L.) Cultivars Grown in Saskatchewan, Canada. Food Chem 221: 1514-1521

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Chel GL, Scilingo AA, Tintore SG, Davila G, Anon MC (2007) Physicochemical and structural characterization of Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) globulins. LWT . Food Sci. Technol 40: 1537-1544

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Black Sea Journal of Agriculture 6(5): 564-570

    Mirbakhsh Mandana, Seyedeh Sara Sohrabi Sedeh, Zahra Zahed (2023) The impact of Persian clover (Trifolium resupinatum L.) on soil health. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture 6(5): 564-570

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Foods 12: 2527

    Wu DT , Li WX, Wan JJ Hu, YC Gan, RY Zou (2023) A Comprehensive Review of Pea (Pisum sativum L.): Chemical Composition, Processing, Health Benefits, and Food Applications. Foods 12: 2527

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Food Chemistry 104: 259-267

    Kaur M, Sandhu KS, Singh N (2007) Comparative study of the functional, thermal and pasting properties of flours from different field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) cultivars. Food Chemistry 104: 259-267

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    International J Food Sci

    Han H, Baik BK (2008) Antioxidant activity and phenolic content of lentils (Lens culinaris), chickpeas (Cicerarietinum L.), peas (Pisum sativum L.) and soybeans (Glycine max) and their quantitative changes during processing. International J Food Sci. Technol 43: 1971-1978

    work page 2008

  8. [8]

    American Journal of Experimental Agriculture 3(2): 374-391

    Hafeez B, Khanif YM, Saleem M (2013) Role of Zinc in Plant Nutrition- A Review. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture 3(2): 374-391

    work page 2013

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Journal of Plant Nutrition 27(6): 947-958

    Fageria NK (2004) Dry matter yield and nutrient uptake by lowland rice at different growth stages. Journal of Plant Nutrition 27(6): 947-958

    2004

  2. [10]

    Sinauer Assoc

    Epstein, Bloom (2005) Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. Sinauer Assoc

    2005

  3. [11]

    Chaney (1993) Risks associated with use of sewage sludge in Agriculture. In Proc. 15th Federal Convention.vol.1. Australian water and wastewater Association, Queensland, Australia

    1993

  4. [12]

    Potash and Phosphate Institute and Potash and Phosphate Institute of 12

    Dobermann A, Fairhurst T (2000) Rice: Nutritional Disorders and Nutrient Management. Potash and Phosphate Institute and Potash and Phosphate Institute of 12. References 145 Canada (PPI/PPIC) and International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Singapore and Makati City, the Philippines

    2000

  5. [13]

    CRC press LLC

    Benton JJ (2003) Agronomic handbook; management of crops, soils and their fertility. CRC press LLC. USA

    2003

  6. [14]

    (2022) Sustaining Protein Nutrition through Plant-Based Foods

    Langyan S, Yadava P , Khan FN, Dar ZA, Singh R, et al. (2022) Sustaining Protein Nutrition through Plant-Based Foods. Front. Nutr 8: 772573. American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research Am J Biomed Sci & Res Copyright© Samaneh Goodarzi 502

    2022

  7. [15]

    BMJ 370: m2412

    Naghshi S, Sadeghi O, Willett WC, Esmaillzadeh A (2020) Dietary Intake of Total, Animal, and Plant Proteins and Risk of All Cause, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality: Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta- Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. BMJ 370: m2412

    2020

  8. [16]

    Kumar A, Swaroop N, David A, Thomas T (2020) Effect of Different Level of Sulphur and Zinc on Soil Health and Yield of Blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) Var. Barkha. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 9(8): 1175-1181

    2020

  9. [17]

    Pandey N, Gupta B (2012) Improving seed yield of black gram (Vigna mungo L. var. DPU-88 31) through foliar fertilization of zinc during the reproductive phase. J Plant Nutr 35(11): 1683-1692

    2012

  10. [18]

    Nadergoli MS, Yarnia M, Khoei FR (2011) Effect of Zinc and Manganese and Their Application Method on Yield and Yield Components of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Khomein). Middle-East J Sci Res 8(5): 859- 865

    2011

  11. [19]

    Agril Sci 3(1): 9-13

    Salehin F, Rahman S (2012) Effects of zinc and nitrogen fertilizer and their application method on yield and yield components of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Agril Sci 3(1): 9-13

    2012

  12. [20]

    Asian J Crop Sci 5(1): 33-40

    Ali EA, Mahmoud AM (2013) Effect of foliar spray by different salicylic acid and zinc concentrations on seed yield and yield components of mung bean in sandy soil. Asian J Crop Sci 5(1): 33-40

    2013

  13. [21]

    International Journal of Chemical Studies 9(2): 869-872

    Borah L, Saikia J (2021) Effect of foliar application of zinc on growth and yield of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) in Assam condition. International Journal of Chemical Studies 9(2): 869-872

    2021

  14. [22]

    Ann Bot Fenn 20(2): 205-213

    Päivöke A (1983) The long-term effects of zinc on the growth and development, chlorophyll content and nitrogen fixation of the garden pea. Ann Bot Fenn 20(2): 205-213

    1983

  15. [23]

    Braz J Plant Physiol 14(2): 111-116

    Stoyanova Z, Doncheva S (2002) The effect of zinc supply and succinate treatment on plant growth and mineral uptake in pea plant. Braz J Plant Physiol 14(2): 111-116

    2002

  16. [24]

    Abdul Baser, Zanier Shat, Muhammad Naeem, FehanBakht, Hfan ZH (2008) Effect of phos pharos and farm yard manure an agronomic traits of chickpea (Aicer arietinum L) Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 24(4): 567-572

    2008

  17. [25]

    Takkar PN, Walker C (1993) The Distribution and Correction of Zinc Deficiency. In A.D. Robson (ed). Zinc in Soils and Plants (pp. 51). London: Kluwar Academic publisher

    1993

  18. [26]

    Plant Physiology 134: 308-315

    Marschner H, Cakmak I (1989) High light intensity enhances chlorosis and necrosis in the leaves of zinc, potassium and manganese deficient bean (Physeolus vulgaris L.) plants. Plant Physiology 134: 308-315

    1989

  19. [27]

    New Phytol 146:185-205

    Cakmak I (2000) Role of zinc in protecting plant cells from reactive oxygen species. New Phytol 146:185-205

    2000

  20. [28]

    (2008) Micronutrients and crop production

    Alloway BJ. (2008) Micronutrients and crop production. In Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production. pp. 1-39© Springer Science Business Media BV

    2008

  21. [29]

    Fourthedition, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York 382-391

    Tisdale SL, Nelson WL, Beaten JD (1984) Zinc In soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Fourthedition, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York 382-391

    1984

  22. [30]

    Ilmu Pertanian (Agricultural Science) 8(3): 175-185

    Mirbakhsh Mandana, Seyedeh Sara Sohrabi Sedeh (2023) The role of mycorrhiza and humic acid on quantitative and qualitative traits of faba bean plant under different fertilizer regimes. Ilmu Pertanian (Agricultural Science) 8(3): 175-185

    2023

  23. [31]

    London: Academic Press

    Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants (2nd ed.). London: Academic Press

    1995

  24. [32]

    Effect of short and long period of salinity stress on physiological responses and biochemical markers of Aloe vera L

    Mirbakhsh Mandana (2022) “Effect of short and long period of salinity stress on physiological responses and biochemical markers of Aloe vera L.” Ilmu Pertanian (Agricultural Science) 7(3): 178-187

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.