B1 Other refereed article (e.g., editorial, letter, comment) in a scientific journal

Fluctuating asymmetry in ecological and environmental research: Quo vadis?



Authors: Kozlov, Mikhail V.

Publisher: Wiley

Publishing place: HOBOKEN

Publication year: 2025

Journal: Functional Ecology

Journal name in source: Functional Ecology

Journal acronym: FUNCT ECOL

Volume: 39

Issue: 1

First page : 4

Last page: 8

Number of pages: 5

ISSN: 0269-8463

eISSN: 1365-2435

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14713

Web address : https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.14713

Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/485132881


Abstract
  1. Májeková et al. (2024) demonstrated that leaf fluctuating asymmetry (FA) is not a reliable indicator of stress. I broaden the perspective on the findings by these authors.
  2. High prevalence of confirmation bias could explain why as much as 39% of 131 unique entries (plant species × stress type) in the database of published studies compiled by these authors showed the significant increase in FA with stress.
  3. The use of blind methods should be considered obligatory for any study addressing environmental or genetic impacts on FA.
  4. Both data and conclusions from FA-related studies that did not report blinding should only be used when proof of negligible impact from confirmation bias can be provided.
  5. It is essential that all measures taken against biases are described in each submitted manuscript, and that the need to check for these requirements is included in instructions for reviewers.

Downloadable publication

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Please cite the original version.


Last updated on 2025-21-03 at 11:41