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.

Globally, rivers systems are under considerable and increasing threat from multiple anthropogenic stresses, including different types of direct (e.g. channel engineering) and indirect human impacts (e.g. land cover and land use changes) that alter water and sediment dynamics. (Dis)connectivity relationships determine the source, timing and rates of water and sediment flux in catchments and thus their geomorphic sensitivity to disturbance. However, most river and catchment management plans overlook the role of sediment (dis)connectivity. Here we use examples from different environmental settings with different sediment-related problems to show how understandings of sediment (dis)connectivity can inform catchment-based management plans. We focus on concerns for river conservation and recovery, using examples from Austria, New Zealand and Australia. Finally, we present questions for practitioners to consider to appropriately contextualise management applications when using (dis)connectivity concepts in practice. Our findings revealed that differences in sediment (dis)connectivity relationships exert profound catchment-specific variability in (eco)-geomorphic response to disturbance. Understanding (dis)connectivity and system history is therefore essential to forecast the effects of on-ground management actions.