Advertisement

Robustness Through Regime Flips in Collapsing Ecological Networks

  • Suresh Babu
  • Gitanjali Yadav
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 812)

Abstract

There has been considerable progress in our perception of organized complexity in recent years. Recurrent debates on the dynamics and stability of complex systems have provided several insights, but it is very difficult to find identifiable patterns in the relationship between complex network structure and dynamics. Traditionally an arena for theoreticians, much of this research has been invigorated by demonstration of alternate stable states in real world ecosystems such as lakes, coral reefs, forests and grasslands. In this work, we use topological connectivity attributes of eighty six ecological networks and link these with random and targeted perturbations, to obtain general patterns of behaviour of complex real world systems. We have analyzed the response of each ecological network to individual, grouped and cascading extinctions, and the results suggest that most networks are robust to loss of specialists until specific thresholds are reached in terms of network geodesics. If the extinctions persist beyond these thresholds, a state change or ‘flip’ occurs and the structural properties are altered drastically, although the network does not collapse. As opposed to simpler or smaller networks, we find larger networks to contain multiple states that may in turn, ensure long-term persistence, suggesting that complexity can endow resilience to ecosystems. The concept of critical transitions in ecological networks and the implications of these findings for complex systems characterized by networks are likely to be profound with immediate significance for ecosystem conservation, invasion biology and restoration ecology.

References

  1. 1.
    Carlson, J.M., Doyle, J.: Complexity and robustness. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99(Suppl 1), 2538–2545 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    May, R.M., Levin, S.A., Sugihara, G.: Ecology for bankers. Nature 451, 893–895 (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Memmott, J., Waser, N.M., Price, M.V.: Tolerance of pollinator networks to species extinctions. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271, 2605–2611 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Srinivasan, U.T., Dunne, J.A., Harte, J., Martinez, N.D.: Response of complex food webs to realistic extinction sequences. Ecology 88, 671–682 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bascompte, J., Jordano, P., Olesen, J.M.: Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance. Science 312, 431–433 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pascual, M., Dunne, J.A.: Ecological Networks: Linking Structure to Dynamics in Food Webs. Macmillan Publishers Limited, All rights reserved (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Montoya, J.M., Pimm, S.L., Sole, R.V.: Ecological networks and their fragility. Nature 442, 259–264 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugihara, G., Ye, H.: Complex systems: cooperative network dynamics. Nature 458, 979–980 (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bastolla, U., Fortuna, M.A., Pascual-Garcia, A., Ferrera, A., Luque, B., et al.: The architecture of mutualistic networks minimizes competition and increases biodiversity. Nature 458, 1018–1020 (2009)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Albert, R., Jeong, H., Barabasi, A.L.: Error and attack tolerance of complex networks. Nature 406, 378–382 (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yadav, G., Babu, S.: Nexcade: perturbation analysis for complex networks. PLoS ONE 7(8), e41827 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dunne, J.A., Williams, R.J.: Cascading extinctions and community collapse in model food webs. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 364, 1711–1723 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shannon, P., Markiel, A., Ozier, O., Baliga, N.S., Wang, J.T., et al.: Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Csardi, G., Nepusz, T.: The igraph software package for complex network research. Complex Syst. Inter J. 1695 (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Butts, C.T.: Social network analysis with sna. J. Stat. Softw. 24 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dormann, C.F., Frund, J., Bluthgen, N., Gruber, B.: Indices, graphs and null models: analyzing bipartite ecological networks. Open Ecol. J. 2, 7–24 (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Almeida-Neto, M., Guimarães, P., Jr. PRG, Loyola, R.D., Ulrich, W.: A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117, 1227–1239 (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guimarães, J.P.R., Guimarães, P.: Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environ. Model Softw. 21, 1512–1513 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jordano, P.J., Bascompte, J., Olesen, J.M., Waser, N.M.: The ecological consequences of complex topology and nested structure in pollination webs. In: Waser, N.M., Ollerton, J. (eds.) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization, pp. 173–199. University Of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diamond, J.M.: The present, past and future of human-caused extinctions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 325, 469–476; discussion 476–467 (1989)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koh, L.P., Dunn, R.R., Sodhi, N.S., Colwell, R.K., Proctor, H.C., et al.: Species coextinctions and the biodiversity crisis. Science 305, 1632–1634 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dunn, R.R., Harris, N.C., Colwell, R.K., Koh, L.P., Sodhi, N.S.: The sixth mass coextinction: are most endangered species parasites and mutualists? Proc. Biol. Sci. 276, 3037–3045 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W.A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S.R., et al.: Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sutherland, J.P.: Multiple stable points in natural communities. Am. Nat. 108, 859–873 (1974)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human EcologyAmbedkar University of DelhiDelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of Cambridge, Downing SiteCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Genomics & Systems Biology LaboratoryNational Institute of Plant Genome Research (NIPGR)New DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations