Literature DB >> 33079943

Maximising the clustering coefficient of networks and the effects on habitat network robustness.

Henriette Heer1, Lucas Streib1, Ralf B Schäfer1, Stefan Ruzika2.   

Abstract

The robustness of networks against node failure and the response of networks to node removal has been studied extensively for networks such as transportation networks, power grids, and food webs. In many cases, a network's clustering coefficient was identified as a good indicator for network robustness. In ecology, habitat networks constitute a powerful tool to represent metapopulations or -communities, where nodes represent habitat patches and links indicate how these are connected. Current climate and land-use changes result in decline of habitat area and its connectivity and are thus the main drivers for the ongoing biodiversity loss. Conservation efforts are therefore needed to improve the connectivity and mitigate effects of habitat loss. Habitat loss can easily be modelled with the help of habitat networks and the question arises how to modify networks to obtain higher robustness. Here, we develop tools to identify which links should be added to a network to increase the robustness. We introduce two different heuristics, Greedy and Lazy Greedy, to maximize the clustering coefficient if multiple links can be added. We test these approaches and compare the results to the optimal solution for different generic networks including a variety of standard networks as well as spatially explicit landscape based habitat networks. In a last step, we simulate the robustness of habitat networks before and after adding multiple links and investigate the increase in robustness depending on both the number of added links and the heuristic used. We found that using our heuristics to add links to sparse networks such as habitat networks has a greater impact on the clustering coefficient compared to randomly adding links. The Greedy algorithm delivered optimal results in almost all cases when adding two links to the network. Furthermore, the robustness of networks increased with the number of additional links added using the Greedy or Lazy Greedy algorithm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33079943      PMCID: PMC7575089          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240940

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  12 in total

Review 1.  Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100.

Authors:  O E Sala; F S Chapin; J J Armesto; E Berlow; J Bloomfield; R Dirzo; E Huber-Sanwald; L F Huenneke; R B Jackson; A Kinzig; R Leemans; D M Lodge; H A Mooney; M Oesterheld; N L Poff; M T Sykes; B H Walker; M Walker; D H Wall
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-03-10       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Complexity and fragility in ecological networks.

Authors:  R V Solé; J M Montoya
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2001-10-07       Impact factor: 5.349

Review 3.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization.

Authors:  Albert-László Barabási; Zoltán N Oltvai
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 4.  Graph models of habitat mosaics.

Authors:  Dean L Urban; Emily S Minor; Eric A Treml; Robert S Schick
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2009-01-21       Impact factor: 9.492

5.  Collective dynamics of 'small-world' networks.

Authors:  D J Watts; S H Strogatz
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1998-06-04       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Multiscale connectivity and graph theory highlight critical areas for conservation under climate change.

Authors:  Thomas E Dilt; Peter J Weisberg; Philip Leitner; Marjorie D Matocq; Richard D Inman; Kenneth E Nussear; Todd C Esque
Journal:  Ecol Appl       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.657

7.  Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land-use changes.

Authors:  Nicolas Titeux; Klaus Henle; Jean-Baptiste Mihoub; Adrián Regos; Ilse R Geijzendorffer; Wolfgang Cramer; Peter H Verburg; Lluís Brotons
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 10.863

Review 8.  Global consequences of land use.

Authors:  Jonathan A Foley; Ruth Defries; Gregory P Asner; Carol Barford; Gordon Bonan; Stephen R Carpenter; F Stuart Chapin; Michael T Coe; Gretchen C Daily; Holly K Gibbs; Joseph H Helkowski; Tracey Holloway; Erica A Howard; Christopher J Kucharik; Chad Monfreda; Jonathan A Patz; I Colin Prentice; Navin Ramankutty; Peter K Snyder
Journal:  Science       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Five main phases of landscape degradation revealed by a dynamic mesoscale model analysing the splitting, shrinking, and disappearing of habitat patches.

Authors:  Ádám Kun; Beáta Oborny; Ulf Dieckmann
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Evaluating the connectivity of a protected areas' network under the prism of global change: the efficiency of the European Natura 2000 network for four birds of prey.

Authors:  Antonios D Mazaris; Alexandra D Papanikolaou; Morgane Barbet-Massin; Athanasios S Kallimanis; Frédéric Jiguet; Dirk S Schmeller; John D Pantis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  2 in total

1.  Altered cortical structure network in children with obstructive sleep apnea.

Authors:  Min-Hee Lee; Sanghun Sin; Seonjoo Lee; Hyunbin Park; Mark E Wagshul; Molly E Zimmerman; Raanan Arens
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2022-02-05       Impact factor: 6.313

2.  Pricing of cyber insurance premiums using a Markov-based dynamic model with clustering structure.

Authors:  Yeftanus Antonio; Sapto Wahyu Indratno; Suhadi Wido Saputro
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.