Understanding complex systems from different disciplines, writes @Ecohydrology et al., requires appreciating the standpoints of …

• (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.

Here’s a table (detailed text removed from the original article) that compares disciplinary approaches.

Table 1:
Summary of connectivity challenges across different disciplines. Extent to which connectivity challenges are an issue:

• • * do not present a challenge;
  • ** presents a challenge but progress has been made;
  • *** presents a major challenge.

.	Fundamental Unit (FU)	Separating Structural Connectivity (SC) and Functional Connectivity (FC)	Understanding Emergent Behaviour	Measuring Connectivity
Systems Biology	**	**	**	**
Neuroscience	*	**	**	**
Computational Neuroscience	*	**	*	*
Geomorphology	***	***	***	**
Ecology	**	**	**	**
Social Network Science	*	***	***	***

Recognizing Structural Connectivity (SC) as different from (but not exclusive from) Functional Connectivity (FC) is a big start.

Fig. 1 Network-based representation of structural and functional connectivity. Illustration of ways in which structural and functional connectivity within a multitude of systems can be conceptualised using a network-based approach across Systems Biology, Neuroscience/Computational Neuroscience, Geomorphology, Ecology, and Social Network Science

References

• Connectivity and complex systems: learning from a multi-disciplinary perspective | Laura Turnbull, Marc-Thorsten Hütt, Andreas A. Ioannides, Stuart Kininmonth, Ronald Poeppl, Klement Tockner, Louise J. Bracken, Saskia Keesstra, Lichan Liu, Rens Masselink and Anthony J. Parsons | Applied Network Science | 2018, 3:11 https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-018-0067-2

#complex-systems, #connectivity, #multi-disciplinary