|
Assistant Professor of Biology 
Ph.D. 2000, Carleton University, ON
B.Arts.Sc. 1993, McMaster University , ON
Visiting Scientist, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, NY, 2003-present
Postdoctoral Research Associate, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, NY, 2000-2002
Visiting Instructor, Okanagan University College, BC, 1998-1999
Sessional Lecturer, Carleton University, ON, 1998
Web page: Goodwin lab and teaching - look here for more details about my research and teaching.
The overarching question that drives my research is: what is the role of space in ecological systems? In other words, can taking landscape structure or spatial heterogeneity into account alter our understanding of how individuals behave, populations function, or communities are structured? This is a fundamental question in ecology. Accounting for spatial heterogeneity makes research more difficult and more expensive (time, energy, money). If spatial heterogeneity can be ignored without compromising ecological understanding it should be. It is still unclear when spatial heterogeneity can be ignored and when it must be accounted for.
Movement is a key factor linking landscape structure and ecological processes. In order to understand the role of space in population dynamics we need to understand how organisms respond to spatial heterogeneity, primarily through movement. Accordingly, the following questions intrigue me: Can landscape spatial structure influence the ability of organisms to move through landscapes? If spatial structure has a strong effect on movement ability, how does it do that, and is the relationship between spatial structure and movement ability predictable? I would also like to investigate the role of realistic movement behaviour in understanding spatial population processes. Most population models assume simple movement behaviour (e.g., random dispersal). Given more realistic movement behaviour what does that imply for population persistence in heterogeneous landscapes? When might it be necessary to incorporate more realistic movement behaviour into population models?
Incorporating spatial heterogeneity into population analyses can potentially alter the outcome of the analysis. How much more can we learn about a population by taking into account the spatial structure of the population or its environment? Does the incorporation of spatial structure into population models fundamentally change the behaviour of the models, and what does that tell us about the potential role of space in real world populations? I have used both empirical and modelling approaches to assess the role of space in explaining real world population dynamics. I have found this process of iterating back and forth between empirical data and modeling approaches to be a powerful tool for understanding the role of space in ecological systems. In the future I would like to continue this approach of combining spatial explorations of empirical data and spatially-explicit modelling approaches to elucidate the mechanisms, particularly spatially dependent mechanisms, driving ecological systems. Space is likely to be important in the population dynamics of small and/or rare populations. Therefore much of this work would be of direct relevance to understanding how endangered populations persist or invasive species establish and spread.
Representative Publications
Waller, L.A., B.J. Goodwin , M.L. Wilson, R.S. Ostfeld, N. Hayes & S. Marshall. 200x. Exploring spatiotemporal patterns in reported county level incidence and reporting of Lyme disease in the Northeastern United States, 1990-2000. Environmental and Ecological Statistics (In press, final acceptance March 2005).
Goodwin, B.J ., C.G. Jones, E.M. Schauber & R.S. Ostfeld. 2005. Limited dispersal and heterogeneous predation risk synergistically enhance persistence of rare prey . Ecology 86(12):3139-3148.
Connors, M.J., E.M. Schauber, A.A. Forbes, C.G. Jones, B.J. Goodwin & R.S. Ostfeld. 2005. Using track plates to quantify predation risk at small spatial scales . Journal of Mammalogy 86(5):991-996.
Burns C.E., B.J. Goodwin & R.S. Ostfeld. 2005. A prescription for longer-life? Bot-fly infection in the white-footed mouse. Ecology 86(3):753-761.
Goodwin, B.J. 2003. Is landscape connectivity a dependent or independent variable? Landscape Ecology 18(7):687-699 .
Goodwin, B.J. & L. Fahrig. 2002. How does landscape structure influence landscape connectivity? Oikos 99(3):552-570.
Goodwin, B.J. & L. Fahrig. 2002. Effect of landscape structure on the movement behaviour of a specialized goldenrod beetle, Trirhabda borealis . Canadian Journal of Zoology 80(1):24-35.
Goodwin, B.J. , R.S. Ostfeld & E.M. Schauber. 2001. Spatiotemporal variation in a Lyme disease host and vector: Blacklegged ticks on white-footed mice. Vector Borne and Zoonotic Diseases 1(2):129-138.
Goodwin, B.J. , D.J. Bender, T.A. Contreras, L. Fahrig & J.F. Wegner. 1999. Testing for habitat detection distances using orientation data. Oikos 84(1):160-163.
Goodwin, B.J. , A.J. McAllister & L. Fahrig. 1999. Predicting invasiveness of plant species based on biological information. Conservation Biology 13(2):422-426.
Goodwin, B.J. & L. Fahrig. 1998. Spatial scaling and animal population dynamics. In D.L. Peterson & V.T. Parker (eds.), Ecological Scale: Theory and Applications . New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 193-206.
Links
Biology Department, UND
Biology Department Graduate Programs
Contact Dr. Brett Goodwin: brett.goodwin@und.nodak.edu
|
