Connectivity and complex systems: learning from a multi-disciplinary perspective

Abstract

In recent years, parallel developments in disparate disciplines have focused on what has come to be termed connectivity; a concept used in understanding and describing complex systems. Conceptualisations and operationalisations of connectivity have evolved largely within their disciplinary boundaries, yet similarities in this concept and its application among disciplines are evident. However, any implementation of the concept of connectivity carries with it both ontological and epistemological constraints, which leads us to ask if there is one type or set of approach(es) to connectivity that might be applied to all disciplines. In this review we explore four ontological and epistemological challenges in using connectivity to understand complex systems from the standpoint of widely different disciplines. These are: (i) defining the fundamental unit for the study of connectivity; (ii) separating structural connectivity from functional connectivity; (iii) understanding emergent behaviour; and (iv) measuring connectivity. We draw upon discipline-specific insights from Computational Neuroscience, Ecology, Geomorphology, Neuroscience, Social Network Science and Systems Biology to explore the use of connectivity among these disciplines. We evaluate how a connectivity-based approach has generated new understanding of structural-functional relationships that characterise complex systems and propose a ‘common toolbox’ underpinned by network-based approaches that can advance connectivity studies by overcoming existing constraints.

Indices of sediment connectivity: opportunities, challenges and limitations

“…The issue of scale is closely related to the delineation of "fundamental units", i.e., spatial or functional elementary entities of a landscape, and the way they are linked to each other with respect to water and sediment transfer (see Turnbull et al, 2018, andParsons, 2018, for a discussion of fundamental units). We argue that, in geomorphology, an intuitive fundamental unit is the landform, or the (sub-)catchment, depending on the scale of interest.…”

“…First, to design indices that directly relate to such landscape units; similar solutions have been described in section 3.3 (see also Table 1). However, the question of what is the fundamental spatial unit ( e.g., a landform or a catchment) remains largely unresolved and is subject to future research (Turnbull et al, 2018;Poeppl and Parsons, 2018). Second, in a sort of upscaling approach, studies have attempted to aggregate pixel-based indices for larger spatial units in order to assess the connectivity of the se larger areas.…”

“…As sediment connectivity is hardly measurable (Brazier et al, 2015;Turnbull et al 2018), indices have been proposed for the assessment of spatiotemporal patterns of connectiv ity, the investigation of connectivity drivers and changes, and for use in explanatory or predictive frameworks. Due to the increasing availability of DEMs and other remote sensing data that can serve as proxy for quantifying the most relevant factors controlling sediment connectivity, a number of sediment connectivity indices has been developed.…”

Reply to your comments

“…Connecteur WG3 Think-Tank Team, 2018;Heckmann et al, 2018) and without (e.g. Turnbull et al, 2018) research of connectivity or with actors outside academia .…”

Social-ecological network analysis for sustainability sciences: a systematic review and innovative research agenda for the future

“…A comprehensive review about the use of SENs to study various environmental problems is critical given the growing interest in network approaches. Some network methodologies and epistemologies are discussed by Turnbull et al (2018) through a fascinating synthesis across disparate scientific disciplines. Turnbull et al (2018), however, only briefly mention SENs and do not focus on the science and practice of environmental change, management, and decision making, leaving much ground that still needs to be covered.…”