Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Emma E. Hodgson is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Emma E. Hodgson.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 2015

Fishing amplifies forage fish population collapses

Timothy E. Essington; Pamela E. Moriarty; Halley E. Froehlich; Emma E. Hodgson; Laura E. Koehn; Kiva L. Oken; Margaret C. Siple; Christine C. Stawitz

Significance Forage fish provide substantial benefits to both humans and ocean food webs, but these benefits may be in conflict unless there are effective policies governing human activities, such as fishing. Collapses of forage fish induce widespread ecological effects on dependent predators, but attributing collapses to fishing has been difficult because of natural fluctuations of these stocks. We implicate fishing in forage fish stock collapses by showing that high fishing rates are maintained when stock productivity is in rapid decline. As a consequence, the magnitude and frequency but not duration of stock collapses are far greater than expected from natural fluctuations. Risk-based management policies would provide substantial ecological benefits with little effect on fishery catches. Forage fish support the largest fisheries in the world but also play key roles in marine food webs by transferring energy from plankton to upper trophic-level predators, such as large fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. Fishing can, thereby, have far reaching consequences on marine food webs unless safeguards are in place to avoid depleting forage fish to dangerously low levels, where dependent predators are most vulnerable. However, disentangling the contributions of fishing vs. natural processes on population dynamics has been difficult because of the sensitivity of these stocks to environmental conditions. Here, we overcome this difficulty by collating population time series for forage fish populations that account for nearly two-thirds of global catch of forage fish to identify the fingerprint of fisheries on their population dynamics. Forage fish population collapses shared a set of common and unique characteristics: high fishing pressure for several years before collapse, a sharp drop in natural population productivity, and a lagged response to reduce fishing pressure. Lagged response to natural productivity declines can sharply amplify the magnitude of naturally occurring population fluctuations. Finally, we show that the magnitude and frequency of collapses are greater than expected from natural productivity characteristics and therefore, likely attributed to fishing. The durations of collapses, however, were not different from those expected based on natural productivity shifts. A risk-based management scheme that reduces fishing when populations become scarce would protect forage fish and their predators from collapse with little effect on long-term average catches.


Global Change Biology | 2017

Risks of ocean acidification in the California Current food web and fisheries: ecosystem model projections

Kristin N. Marshall; Isaac C. Kaplan; Emma E. Hodgson; Albert J. Hermann; D. Shallin Busch; Paul McElhany; Timothy E. Essington; Chris J. Harvey; Elizabeth A. Fulton

The benefits and ecosystem services that humans derive from the oceans are threatened by numerous global change stressors, one of which is ocean acidification. Here, we describe the effects of ocean acidification on an upwelling system that already experiences inherently low pH conditions, the California Current. We used an end-to-end ecosystem model (Atlantis), forced by downscaled global climate models and informed by a meta-analysis of the pH sensitivities of local taxa, to investigate the direct and indirect effects of future pH on biomass and fisheries revenues. Our model projects a 0.2-unit drop in pH during the summer upwelling season from 2013 to 2063, which results in wide-ranging magnitudes of effects across guilds and functional groups. The most dramatic direct effects of future pH may be expected on epibenthic invertebrates (crabs, shrimps, benthic grazers, benthic detritivores, bivalves), and strong indirect effects expected on some demersal fish, sharks, and epibenthic invertebrates (Dungeness crab) because they consume species known to be sensitive to changing pH. The models pelagic community, including marine mammals and seabirds, was much less influenced by future pH. Some functional groups were less affected to changing pH in the model than might be expected from experimental studies in the empirical literature due to high population productivity (e.g., copepods, pteropods). Model results suggest strong effects of reduced pH on nearshore state-managed invertebrate fisheries, but modest effects on the groundfish fishery because individual groundfish species exhibited diverse responses to changing pH. Our results provide a set of projections that generally support and build upon previous findings and set the stage for hypotheses to guide future modeling and experimental analysis on the effects of OA on marine ecosystems and fisheries.


Ecology | 2017

Density dependence governs when population responses to multiple stressors are magnified or mitigated

Emma E. Hodgson; Timothy E. Essington; Benjamin S. Halpern

Population endangerment typically arises from multiple, potentially interacting anthropogenic stressors. Extensive research has investigated the consequences of multiple stressors on organisms, frequently focusing on individual life stages. Less is known about population-level consequences of exposure to multiple stressors, especially when exposure varies through life. We provide the first theoretical basis for identifying species at risk of magnified effects from multiple stressors across life history. By applying a population modeling framework, we reveal conditions under which population responses from stressors applied to distinct life stages are either magnified (synergistic) or mitigated. We find that magnification or mitigation critically depends on the shape of density dependence, but not the life stage in which it occurs. Stressors are always magnified when density dependence is linear or concave, and magnified or mitigated when it is convex. Using Bayesian numerical methods, we estimated the shape of density dependence for eight species across diverse taxa, finding support for all three shapes.


PLOS ONE | 2016

Extending Vulnerability Assessment to Include Life Stages Considerations

Emma E. Hodgson; Timothy E. Essington; Isaac C. Kaplan

Species are experiencing a suite of novel stressors from anthropogenic activities that have impacts at multiple scales. Vulnerability assessment is one tool to evaluate the likely impacts that these stressors pose to species so that high-vulnerability cases can be identified and prioritized for monitoring, protection, or mitigation. Commonly used semi-quantitative methods lack a framework to explicitly account for differences in exposure to stressors and organism responses across life stages. Here we propose a modification to commonly used spatial vulnerability assessment methods that includes such an approach, using ocean acidification in the California Current as an illustrative case study. Life stage considerations were included by assessing vulnerability of each life stage to ocean acidification and were used to estimate population vulnerability in two ways. We set population vulnerability equal to: (1) the maximum stage vulnerability and (2) a weighted mean across all stages, with weights calculated using Lefkovitch matrix models. Vulnerability was found to vary across life stages for the six species explored in this case study: two krill–Euphausia pacifica and Thysanoessa spinifera, pteropod–Limacina helicina, pink shrimp–Pandalus jordani, Dungeness crab–Metacarcinus magister and Pacific hake–Merluccius productus. The maximum vulnerability estimates ranged from larval to subadult and adult stages with no consistent stage having maximum vulnerability across species. Similarly, integrated vulnerability metrics varied greatly across species. A comparison showed that some species had vulnerabilities that were similar between the two metrics, while other species’ vulnerabilities varied substantially between the two metrics. These differences primarily resulted from cases where the most vulnerable stage had a low relative weight. We compare these methods and explore circumstances where each method may be appropriate.


Conservation Biology | 2018

Investigating cumulative effects across ecological scales: Cumulative Impacts Across Scales

Emma E. Hodgson; Benjamin S. Halpern

Species, habitats, and ecosystems are increasingly exposed to multiple anthropogenic stressors, fueling a rapidly expanding research program to understand the cumulative impacts of these environmental modifications. Since the 1970s, a growing set of methods has been developed through two parallel, sometimes connected, streams of research within the applied and academic realms to assess cumulative effects. Past reviews of cumulative effects assessment (CEA) methods focused on approaches used by practitioners. Academic research has developed several distinct and novel approaches to conducting CEA. Understanding the suite of methods that exist will help practitioners and academics better address various ecological foci (physiological responses, population impacts, ecosystem impacts) and ecological complexities (synergistic effects, impacts across space and time). We reviewed 6 categories of methods (experimental, meta-analysis, single-species modeling, mapping, qualitative modeling, and multispecies modeling) and examined the ability of those methods to address different levels of complexity. We focused on research gaps and emerging priorities. We found that no single method assessed impacts across the 4 ecological foci and 6 ecological complexities considered. We propose that methods can be used in combination to improve understanding such that multimodel inference can provide a suite of comparable outputs, mapping methods can help prioritize localized models or experimental gaps, and future experiments can be paired from the outset with models they will inform.


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 2015

Reply to Szuwalski and Hilborn: Forage fish require an ecosystem approach

Timothy E. Essington; Margaret C. Siple; Emma E. Hodgson; Laura E. Koehn; Pamela E. Moriarty; Kiva L. Oken; Christine C. Stawitz

In response to our recent paper (1), Szuwalski and Hilborn (2) make several points about the timing of recruitment failures, the effect of fishing on productivity, and our choice of using biomass, not recruitment, as the indicator for collapses. We address these points here to show that not only do they not affect our conclusions, but that we are largely in agreement regarding the biological processes and the implications for fisheries and conservation.


Ecological Modelling | 2017

Modeling food web effects of low sardine and anchovy abundance in the California Current

Isaac C. Kaplan; Laura E. Koehn; Emma E. Hodgson; Kristin N. Marshall; Timothy E. Essington


Marine Policy | 2015

Issues at the fore in the land of Magnuson and Stevens: A summary of the 14th Bevan Series on Sustainable Fisheries

Peter T. Kuriyama; Margaret C. Siple; Emma E. Hodgson; Elizabeth M. Phillips; Merrick Burden; David Fluharty; André E. Punt; Timothy E. Essington; John Henderschedt; David A. Armstrong


Ecological Modelling | 2018

Consequences of spatially variable ocean acidification in the California Current: Lower pH drives strongest declines in benthic species in southern regions while greatest economic impacts occur in northern regions

Emma E. Hodgson; Isaac C. Kaplan; Kristin N. Marshall; Jerry Leonard; Timothy E. Essington; D. Shallin Busch; Elizabeth A. Fulton; Chris J. Harvey; Albert J. Hermann; Paul McElhany


Ecological Indicators | 2018

The need for validation of ecological indices

Pamela E. Moriarty; Emma E. Hodgson; Halley E. Froehlich; S.M. Hennessey; K.N. Marshall; K.L. Oken; Margaret C. Siple; S. Ko; Laura E. Koehn; B.D. Pierce; Christine C. Stawitz

Collaboration


Dive into the Emma E. Hodgson's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Isaac C. Kaplan

National Marine Fisheries Service

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Laura E. Koehn

University of Washington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Albert J. Hermann

Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Chris J. Harvey

National Marine Fisheries Service

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge