Overworked and burdened, I could be brusque and dismissive. But it was never for a lack of effort or respect for writers. I cared fervently about the process, about trying to make it fair and professional. Pride and integrity were what drove me. I was not interested in gaining power or attention, nor was I hoping to promote my own writing career by being an editor. In fact, if anything, my job hurt me in that respect. I know this because of my own subconscious reaction whenever I received a submission from a fellow editor, which was, Oh, no, another editor who wants to be a writer, this has got to be bad.

I will concede that there are some real asshole editors out there—rude, negligent, incompetent, narrow-minded, stupid narcissists who wouldn't know a good story or poem if it slapped them on the face—but they're a minority, I believe. The vast majority of them, you see, are publishing their magazines as labors of love. The vast majority are volunteers. They have entirely separate full-time jobs. They fill out grant applications and read manuscripts and typeset issues and haggle with vendors and stick labels onto renewal letters in what little spare time they have.

They forfeit their own ambitions as writers to accomplish this. They do it all for you. Granted, it gets difficult for editors not to become cynical. So when editors find anything with a modicum of craft or originality, they are grateful—yes, grateful.

Introduction

And something else—a hard truth: This is what writers have problems swallowing. I know this, because, as a writer myself, despite my past experience as an editor, I do exactly the same thing. Be kind to your poor, beleaguered editors. Buy a copy of their journals once in a while, or even, God forbid, subscribe to one. If you get rejected, just move on. There are, at least for now, plenty of magazines out there. Two forms of the TLs were considered in this assessment: For the 10 ecosystems, the agreement between the fixed TL and each of the variable TLs of modelled species was assessed by plotting the standardized difference between the measurements variable TL-fixed TL against the fixed TL value.

Note of appreciation

This allowed for a comparable assessment of the variability of TLs at a species level across modelled ecosystems. The agreement between each fixed TL-based indicator and corresponding variable TL-based indicator was assessed by producing Bland-Altman plots, i. This allowed for comparable assessment of the level of agreement and for investigation of any relationships between the difference between the two measurements and the mean of the measurements.

In a modelled ecosystem exhibiting strong agreement between fixed TL-based indicators and variable TL-based indicators, the mean difference between the two measurements would be low, indicating low bias. Each of the three indicators was plotted separately to allow for comparison. The proportion of negative significant correlations with fishing pressure can be used as a gauge of the ability of a TL-based indicator to detect the effects of fishing on the structure of marine ecosystems, as TL-based indicators are, theoretically, expected to decrease with fishing pressure Pauly et al.

Across all modelled ecosystems, we examined the degree of correlation between TL-based indicators MTI, TL c , TL sc and fishing pressure F MSY multiplier to establish whether there was consistency in the responses of indicators to fishing, as well as any differences in the capacity of indicators to demonstrate negative correlations with fishing pressure.

We also studied the consistency of response of each TL-based indicator to fishing whether fixed or variable species' TLs are used by considering pairs of variable-TL and fixed-TL indicators in each fishing scenario and each modelled ecosystem. Within each pair of indicators, we evaluated whether the correlations to fishing had the same significance both significant or both non-significant , and whether the significant correlations with fishing had the same sign both positive or both negative. Each boxplot represents a modelled species or group of species.

JoDee Houle (Author of Alaska! A Journal By JoDee Houle)

Standardized differences in variable and fixed simulated TL-based indicators across ecosystems variable TL-based indicator—fixed TL-based indicator , with data points coloured by indicator type. Data points from the three fishing scenarios considered in the present study were plotted together. Each modelled ecosystem includes data points, some of which may overlap: The patterns in the distributions of differences between fixed and variable TL-based indicators for the three indicators considered TL c , TL sc and MTI also varied across modelled ecosystems Figure 3.

In the Gulf of Gabes and West Florida Shelf, the dispersion of differences was very low across simulated indicators. The TL sc values in those modelled ecosystems were also lower than the TL c and MTI values, which was indicative of the higher abundance of low TL species in the community than in the landings. In the South-east Australia modelled ecosystem, the TL c and the TL sc indicators displayed two groups, with one being characterized by low indicator values and another higher indicator values. In the Black Sea and the North Sea, differences between fixed and variable simulated TL-based indicators generally increased with the value of indicators.

In the North Sea, this pattern was displayed across all three simulated indicators, but was clearer in the ALL fishing scenario with a quasi-linear increase which was due to increased fishing pressure. In certain modelled ecosystems, the high dispersion of differences between the fixed and variable TLs of species indicated that the range of variable TLs was wider than in modelled ecosystems with low dispersions of differences Figure 2. These patterns in the average differences and their dispersion were also reflected in the TL-based indicators Figure 3.

On one hand, the five modelled ecosystems that displayed the lowest average differences between the fixed and variable TLs of species and dispersion of differences also displayed the lowest mean and dispersion of differences between fixed and variable TL-based indicators Gulf of Gabes, West coast of Canada, West coast of Scotland, West Florida Shelf and Western Scotian Shelf. On the other hand, the five modelled ecosystems with higher average differences between fixed and variable simulated TLs of species and dispersion of differences also displayed higher mean and dispersion of differences between fixed and variable simulated TL-indicators Black Sea and North Sea, and to a lesser extent South-east Australia, South Catalan Sea and Southern Benguela.

Significant correlation coefficients are positive or negative. The comparison of significant correlations is made across fishing scenarios left panel , simulated indicators middle panel and ecosystems right panel ; b percentage of pairs of fixed and variable TL-based indicators for example the pair TL c -fixed and TL c -variable from the Benguela EwE model for the HTL scenario calculated with fixed vs variable species' TLs where both indicators have the same correlation significance to fishing Signif and same sign for the significant correlation coefficients with fishing pressure Sign.

A comparison is made across fishing scenarios left panel , simulated indicators middle panel and ecosystems right panel. The significance of pairs of correlation coefficients Signif includes whether both correlations are significant or both correlations are non-significant. This suggested a high level of agreement consistency in the significance or lack thereof of a given indicator calculated using fixed vs.


  1. interviews.
  2. TRESTLE CREEK: Things The Dead Fear.
  3. Editors Do not Hate You, But They Have Every Reason To.
  4. Love Rules.
  5. Histoire de vivre : Mémoires dune féministe (Documents, Actualités, Société) (French Edition)?
  6. ?
  7. Hot, Sexy, Sultry, Sweaty: Conduit.

Across modelled ecosystems, all displayed higher percentages of pairs of correlations with the same significance, than pairs of correlations with different significance Figure 4b. Across fishing scenarios, the LTL fishing scenario displayed the lowest consistency between fixed and variable TL-based indicators and yielded the fewest significant negative correlations between fishing pressure and the three TL-based indicators considered. However, TL-based indicators have been subject to criticism.

The main goal of this study was to scrutinize whether one particular critique, the use of a fixed trophic level per species, would invalidate their utility for ecosystem-based assessments. Using model-based simulations, we tested whether considering the variability of species' TL vs. Our results indicate that overall, variable TL-based indicators are more effective at detecting the ecosystem effects of fishing, and survey-based TL-indicators are preferable to catch-based TL-indicators. In our simulation tests, we found that the differences between indicators calculated using fixed vs.

Although the mean difference between fixed and variable TL-based indicators aggregated across all modelled ecosystems was low 0. Pauly and Watson argued that the magnitude of the effect of species TL variability is low in comparison with the impact on change in community composition; however, our results support the view that the effects of species TL variability can be important Caddy et al.

While TL-based indicators are expected to decrease with fishing pressure Pauly et al. The direction of change in ecosystem indicators is specific to both the multispecies assemblages and the fishing scenario under consideration Travers et al. Our simulation results indicate that overall, variable TL-based indicators are better able to detect negative significant correlations with fishing pressure, and, therefore, better able to detect the impacts of fishing on the structure of marine ecosystems than fixed TL-based indicators. However, our simulation results also show that in a high proportion of cases, fixed TL-based indicators do a reasonable job at capturing fishing effects.

Across modelled ecosystems and fishing scenarios, the differences between fixed and variable TL-based indicators varied.


  • Upcoming Events!
  • #2550 KINDY POTHOLDER VINTAGE CROCHET PATTERN.
  • Flying Free: Life Lessons Learned On the Flying Trapeze.
  • Les fonctions de la virgule en français et en allemand (French Edition).
  • Hot, Sexy, Sultry, Sweaty: Conduit | The Review Review?

    • In some of the modelled ecosystems Gulf of Gabes, West coast of Canada, West coast of Scotland, West Florida Shelf and the Western Scotian Shelf , the differences between fixed and variable simulated TL-based indicators were low, and their consistency was high, suggesting that using fixed TL-based indicators may not bias the assessment of fishing impacts in these ecosystems.

    In the Southern Benguela, South-east Australia and the South Catalan Sea modelled ecosystems, the differences between fixed and variable TL-based indicators were moderate. However, in these three modelled ecosystems, the capacity for the simulated indicators to detect negative correlations with fishing pressure was not increased with the use of variable species' TL, and the consistency between indicators was high.

    Finally, the largest differences between fixed and variable TL-based indicators were observed in the Black Sea and the North Sea simulation results. In these two modelled ecosystems, the consistency between fixed and variable TL-based indicators was low, while the capacity of variable TL-based indicators to detect negative impacts of fishing on ecosystem structure was much higher than that of fixed TL-based indicators.

    This suggests cautious use of fixed TL-based indicators for the assessment of fishing effects on the structure of these ecosystems. In addition to variation in indicator responses across modelled ecosystems when fixed vs. By this we mean to draw due attention to the influence of model type Supplementary Table S1 as well as the way in which these models have been constructed e.

    For example, in the OSMOSE models of the Gulf of Gabes and West Florida Shelf, aggregated benthic and planktonic compartments have been designed as potential food resources for the other species in the model, that are the focus of the model and are explicitly modelled with full life cycles. In these model applications, the absence of feedback from the fish populations to the benthic and planktonic compartments partly explains the low variability in species' TL.

    Across modelled ecosystems, the patterns displayed by the differences between fixed and variable species' TLs Figure 2 were generally similar to those displayed by the differences between fixed and variable TL-based indicators Figure 3. The South-east Australia modelled ecosystem is the only system where only a few species were responsible for the dispersion patterns of the indicators' difference.

    As this was the only system modelled using Atlantis, it is unclear whether this is due to the model used or the nature of the ecosystem being represented which is different in structure, with a much higher reliance on invertebrate and mesopelagic food sources, and a much lower productivity, than the other systems.

    "Send Us the Work You Love." A Chat With Jodee Stanley, Editor of Ninth Letter

    To resolve this, the analysis would need to be repeated in one of the systems considered here where an Atlantis model also exists e. Across the fishing scenarios modelled, the TL-based indicators assessed under the LTL scenario showed fewest negative responses to increased fishing pressure. The consistency between fixed and variable species TL responses to fishing pressure was also the lowest, suggesting that under this fishing scenario, the performance of TL-based indicators in detecting modelled fishing effects is reduced.

    In the context of the LTL scenario, the response of TL-based indicators reflects the direct decrease in LTL species biomass but the signal is countered by the indirect responses of the fish community. The LTL species play an important role in marine food webs as they are the primary route of energy flow through the trophic web from plankton to larger predatory fish Pikitch et al. Our simulation results suggest that under the LTL fishing scenario, changes to the trophic structure are complex see Travers-Trolet et al.

    TL-based indicators may not decrease with increasing fishing pressure, and this may not appropriately track the impacts of fishing on the structure of marine ecosystems. This concurs with previous comparative analyses performed under the IndiSeas programme Shannon et al. Differences between TL-based indicators calculated from the simulated biomass of the surveyed community TL sc and the simulated catch data TL c , MTI concur with previous studies that promote the use of survey-based indicators over catch-based indicators.

    This is because survey-based indicators account for changes to the community and there is no confounding effect with fishing strategy Branch et al. Although both TL c and MTI displayed similar consistencies in significance and sign of correlations with fishing pressure, the total number of pairs of significant correlations was lower in MTI indicators.


    • Canadian Journal of Forest Research: Volume 48, Number 1.
    • Editors Do not Hate You, But They Have Every Reason To | The Review Review?
    • .
    • Blazing the HIppie Trail in 1959: Calcutta to London on £10!

      • Yet, in certain ecosystems dominated by LTL species, such as upwelling systems, the inclusion of low TL species in TL-based indicator assessments of the ecosystem is important to correctly capture the functioning of the underlying ecosystem Cury et al. To conclude, the refinement of TL-based indicators to track the effects of fishing is necessary as we progress towards an EAF worldwide.

      Canadian Journal of Forest Research

      Our comparisons of modelled fixed and variable TL-based indicators suggest that overall, variable TL-based indicators may perform better than fixed TL-based indicators in detecting changes in the structure of marine ecosystems due to fishing. In most modelled ecosystems examined here there was high consistency between fixed and variable TL-based indicators, supporting the default use of fixed TLs per species, which are more readily available.

      However, in other modelled ecosystems where the difference between fixed and variable TL-based indicators was high and the consistency in indicator responses was low, the uncertainty in TL variability must be taken into account. This study also suggests that, where possible, TL-based indicators derived from the biomass of the surveyed community should be monitored in addition to TL-based indicators derived from the landed commercial catch, as the capacity of the former to detect changes in ecosystem structure due to fishing is greater.

      Finally, our results reiterate that indicators cannot be applied blindly and wherever possible they should be used with careful attention to context. In particular, our results indicate that caution be used when interpreting TL-based indicators under fishing strategies targeting primarily forage fish, as their ability to detect the effects of fishing is to some degree restricted. The authors would like to thank all collaborators and colleagues who kindly provided data or insights on one or more of the ten ecosystems and four modelling approaches examined.

      The authors are grateful to three anonymous reviewers whose comments have helped improve our paper. Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Sign In or Create an Account. Close mobile search navigation Article navigation. Box 28, Erdemli, Mersin , Turkey. Four ecosystem modelling approaches were used to run simulations for the present study: Ecopath with Ecosim EwE Pauly et al. The four models differ in their structure and assumptions, which are fully documented in the Supplementary material Table S1.

      Ten ecosystems, with different environmental conditions, fishing history and community composition, were modelled using one of these four models. The ecosystems modelled were the following: Applying the same set of simulation experiments in various case studies with different modelling approaches is intended to generalize the indicator results with a broader perspective, and to account for uncertainties due to model and ecosystem structures. View large Download slide. TL-based indicators are calculated as the mean trophic position of all species, weighted by the relative biomass of each species in the landings or in the surveyed community.

      The averages and dispersion of differences between the fixed and variable TLs of species varied across modelled ecosystems Figure 2. In four ecosystems Black Sea, North Sea, South Catalan Sea and Southern Benguela , the average differences between fixed and variable simulated TLs and the dispersion of these differences were both high.

      In three ecosystems West coast of Canada, West coast of Scotland and Western Scotian Shelf , the average differences between fixed and variable simulated TLs were low, while the dispersion of these differences was generally low, with a few species displaying higher dispersions of TL differences.