Research article Special Issues

Methods used to parameterize the spatially-explicit components of a state-and-transition simulation model

  • Spatially-explicit state-and-transition simulation models of land use and land cover (LULC) increase our ability to assess regional landscape characteristics and associated carbon dynamics across multiple scenarios. By characterizing appropriate spatial attributes such as forest age and land-use distribution, a state-and-transition model can more effectively simulate the pattern and spread of LULC changes. This manuscript describes the methods and input parameters of the Land Use and Carbon Scenario Simulator (LUCAS), a customized state-and-transition simulation model utilized to assess the relative impacts of LULC on carbon stocks for the conterminous U.S. The methods and input parameters are spatially explicit and describe initial conditions (strata, state classes and forest age), spatial multipliers, and carbon stock density. Initial conditions were derived from harmonization of multi-temporal data characterizing changes in land use as well as land cover. Harmonization combines numerous national-level datasets through a cell-based data fusion process to generate maps of primary LULC categories. Forest age was parameterized using data from the North American Carbon Program and spatially-explicit maps showing the locations of past disturbances (i.e. wildfire and harvest). Spatial multipliers were developed to spatially constrain the location of future LULC transitions. Based on distance-decay theory, maps were generated to guide the placement of changes related to forest harvest, agricultural intensification/extensification, and urbanization. We analyze the spatially-explicit input parameters with a sensitivity analysis, by showing how LUCAS responds to variations in the model input. This manuscript uses Mediterranean California as a regional subset to highlight local to regional aspects of land change, which demonstrates the utility of LUCAS at many scales and applications.

    Citation: Rachel R. Sleeter, William Acevedo, Christopher E. Soulard, Benjamin M. Sleeter. Methods used to parameterize the spatially-explicit components of a state-and-transition simulation model[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(3): 668-693. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.3.668

    Related Papers:

    [1] Jingli Xie, Hongli Guo, Meiyang Zhang . Dynamics of an SEIR model with media coverage mediated nonlinear infectious force. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14616-14633. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023654
    [2] Martin Luther Mann Manyombe, Joseph Mbang, Jean Lubuma, Berge Tsanou . Global dynamics of a vaccination model for infectious diseases with asymptomatic carriers. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2016, 13(4): 813-840. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2016019
    [3] Hamdy M. Youssef, Najat A. Alghamdi, Magdy A. Ezzat, Alaa A. El-Bary, Ahmed M. Shawky . A new dynamical modeling SEIR with global analysis applied to the real data of spreading COVID-19 in Saudi Arabia. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(6): 7018-7044. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020362
    [4] Abdisa Shiferaw Melese, Oluwole Daniel Makinde, Legesse Lemecha Obsu . Mathematical modelling and analysis of coffee berry disease dynamics on a coffee farm. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 7349-7373. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022347
    [5] Yujie Sheng, Jing-An Cui, Songbai Guo . The modeling and analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic with vaccination and isolation: a case study of Italy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5966-5992. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023258
    [6] María Guadalupe Vázquez-Peña, Cruz Vargas-De-León, Jorge Fernando Camacho-Pérez, Jorge Velázquez-Castro . Analysis and Bayesian estimation of a model for Chikungunya dynamics with relapse: An outbreak in Acapulco, Mexico. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(10): 18123-18145. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023805
    [7] S. J. Gutowska, K. A. Hoffman, K. F. Gurski . The effect of PrEP uptake and adherence on the spread of HIV in the presence of casual and long-term partnerships. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(12): 11903-11934. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022555
    [8] Maryam Al-Yahyai, Fatma Al-Musalhi, Ibrahim Elmojtaba, Nasser Al-Salti . Mathematical analysis of a COVID-19 model with different types of quarantine and isolation. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(1): 1344-1375. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023061
    [9] Yiwei He, Qianqian Cui, Zengyun Hu . Modeling and analysis of the transmission dynamics of cystic echinococcosis: Effects of increasing the number of sheep. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(8): 14596-14615. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023653
    [10] Rajanish Kumar Rai, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Yun Kang, Arvind Kumar Misra . Modeling the effect of literacy and social media advertisements on the dynamics of infectious diseases. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5812-5848. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020311
  • Spatially-explicit state-and-transition simulation models of land use and land cover (LULC) increase our ability to assess regional landscape characteristics and associated carbon dynamics across multiple scenarios. By characterizing appropriate spatial attributes such as forest age and land-use distribution, a state-and-transition model can more effectively simulate the pattern and spread of LULC changes. This manuscript describes the methods and input parameters of the Land Use and Carbon Scenario Simulator (LUCAS), a customized state-and-transition simulation model utilized to assess the relative impacts of LULC on carbon stocks for the conterminous U.S. The methods and input parameters are spatially explicit and describe initial conditions (strata, state classes and forest age), spatial multipliers, and carbon stock density. Initial conditions were derived from harmonization of multi-temporal data characterizing changes in land use as well as land cover. Harmonization combines numerous national-level datasets through a cell-based data fusion process to generate maps of primary LULC categories. Forest age was parameterized using data from the North American Carbon Program and spatially-explicit maps showing the locations of past disturbances (i.e. wildfire and harvest). Spatial multipliers were developed to spatially constrain the location of future LULC transitions. Based on distance-decay theory, maps were generated to guide the placement of changes related to forest harvest, agricultural intensification/extensification, and urbanization. We analyze the spatially-explicit input parameters with a sensitivity analysis, by showing how LUCAS responds to variations in the model input. This manuscript uses Mediterranean California as a regional subset to highlight local to regional aspects of land change, which demonstrates the utility of LUCAS at many scales and applications.


    By a graph $ G = (V(G), E(G)) $, with $ V(G) $ and $ E(G) $ the set of vertices and edges of $ G $ respectively, we mean an undirected simple graph without isolated vertices (i.e., each vertex has at least a neighbor).

    Given a graph $ G $, representing a chemical structure,

    $ X(G) = \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} F(d_u, d_v) $

    is said a topological descriptor and, if also it correlates with a molecular property, it is called a topological index. Above, by $ uv $ we mean the edge of a graph $ G $ joining the vertices $ u $ and $ v $, $ d_u $ denotes the degree of $ u $, and $ F $ is an appropriate chosen function. Remarkably, topological indices capture physical properties of a chemical compound in a single number.

    A great number of topological indices have been defined and studied over more than four decades. Among them, probably the most popular topological indices are the Randić and the Zagreb indices. The first and second Zagreb indices, denoted by $ M_1 $ and $ M_2 $, respectively, were defined by Gutman and Trinajstić (see [1]) in $ 1972 $ by

    $ M_1(G) = \sum\limits_{u\in V(G)} d_u^2, \qquad M_2(G) = \sum\limits_{uv\in E(G)} d_u d_v . \qquad $

    For more details of the applications and mathematical properties of Zagreb indices see [2,3,4], and the references therein. Zagreb indices have many connections with other topological indices, see e.g., [5,6].

    The concept of variable molecular descriptors was proposed as a way of characterizing heteroatoms (see [7,8]), but also to assess structural differences in alkylcycloalkanes [9]. The idea behind the variable molecular descriptors is that the variables are determined during the regression in order to minimize the error of estimate for a particular chemical property (see, e.g., [10]).

    In this line of ideas, the variable versions of the first and second Zagreb indices were introduced as [10,11,12]

    $ M_1^{ \alpha}(G) = \sum\limits_{u\in V(G)} d_u^{ \alpha}, \qquad M_2^{ \alpha}(G) = \sum\limits_{uv\in E(G)} (d_u d_v)^ \alpha , $

    with $ \alpha \in \mathbb{R} $. Evidently, $ M_1^{2} $ and $ M_2^{1} $ are the first and second Zagreb indices, respectively. In addition, the first and second variable Zagreb indices include several known indices. As examples we note that $ M_2^{-1/2} $ is the Randić index, $ M_1^{3} $ is the forgotten index $ F $, $ M_1^{-1} $ is the inverse index $ ID $, and $ M_2^{-1} $ is the modified Zagreb index.

    In 2011, Vukičević proposed the variable symmetric division deg index [13]

    $ SDDα(G)=uvE(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu).
    $
    (1.1)

    Note that $ SDD_{-\alpha}(G) = SDD_\alpha(G) $ and so, it suffices to consider positive values of $ \alpha $. The symmetric division deg index is the best predictor of total surface area for polychlorobiphenyls [14].

    In this work we perform studies of the variable symmetric division deg index from analytical and computational viewpoints. We obtain new inequalities for the variable symmetric division deg index $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ and we characterize graphs extremal with respect to them. Some of these inequalities generalize and improve previous results for the symmetric division deg index. In addition, we computationally apply the $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ index on random graphs and we demonstrate that the ratio $ \langle SDD_\alpha(G) \rangle/n $ ($ n $ denotes the order of the graph) depends only on the average degree $ \langle d \rangle $.

    One of our main results is Theorem 8, which provides upper and lower bounds of $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ in terms of the number of edges, the maximum and the minimum degree of $ G $.

    Let us start by proving a monotonicity property of these indices.

    Theorem 1. Let $ G $ be a graph and $ 0 < \alpha < \beta $.Then

    $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) \le SDD_{ \beta}(G) , $

    and the equality in the bound is attained if and only if each connected component of $ G $ is a regular graph.

    Proof. Let us consider $ x \ge 1 $. Thus, $ x^{ \alpha} \ge x^{- \beta} $ and

    $ xβα10,xα(xβα1)xβ(xβα1),xβxαxαxβ,xβ+xβxα+xα,
    $

    for every $ x \ge 1 $. Since $ u(x) = x^{ \alpha} + x^{- \alpha} $ satisfies $ u(1/x) = u(x) $ for every $ x > 0 $, we have $ x^{ \beta} + x^{- \beta} \ge x^{ \alpha} + x^{- \alpha} $ for every $ x > 0 $. Note that we obtain the equality if and only if $ x = 1 $.

    Thus, we have

    $ SDDβ(G)=uvE(G)(dβudβv+dβvdβu)uvE(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=SDDα(G).
    $

    The previous argument gives that we have the equality in the bound if and only if $ d_u/d_v = 1 $ for every $ uv \in E(G) $, i.e., each connected component of $ G $ is a regular graph.

    Our next results in this section provide bounds of $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ involving the maximum and minimum degree of the graph $ G $. Since scientists often estimate average degree of large networks, we present in the next section results involving the average degree.

    Our next theorem relates the $ SDD_ \alpha $ and the variable Zagreb indices.

    Theorem 2. If $ G $ is a graph with minimum degree $ \delta $ and maximum degree $ \Delta $, and $ \alpha > 0 $, then

    $ 2δ2αMα2(G)SDDα(G)2Δ2αMα2(G),Δ2αM2α+11(G)SDDα(G)δ2αM2α+11(G),
    $

    and we have the equality in each bound if and only if $ G $ is regular.

    Proof. First of all recall that for every function $ f $ the following equality

    $ \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} \big( f(d_u)+ f(d_v) \big) = \sum\limits_{u \in V(G)} d_u f(d_u) $

    holds. In particular,

    $ \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} \big( d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha} \big) = \sum\limits_{u \in V(G)} d_u^{2 \alpha+1} = M_1^{2a+1}(G). $

    Since

    $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) = \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} \!\! \left( \, \frac{d_u^{ \alpha}}{d_v^{ \alpha}} + \frac{d_v^{ \alpha}}{d_u^{ \alpha}} \right) = \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} \frac{d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha}}{(d_u d_v)^{ \alpha}} \, . $

    and $ \alpha > 0 $, we obtain

    $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) = \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} \frac{d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha}}{(d_u d_v)^{ \alpha}} \le 2 \Delta^{2 \alpha} \!\! \!\! \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} (d_u d_v)^{- \alpha} = 2 \Delta^{2 \alpha} M_2^{- \alpha}(G) , $

    and

    $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) = \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} \frac{d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha}}{(d_u d_v)^{ \alpha}} \ge 2 \delta^{2 \alpha} \!\! \!\! \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} (d_u d_v)^{- \alpha} = 2 \delta^{2 \alpha} M_2^{- \alpha}(G) . $

    We also have

    $ SDDα(G)=uvE(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)αδ2αuvE(G)(d2αu+d2αv)=δ2αuV(G)d2α+1u=δ2αM2α+11(G),
    $

    and

    $ SDDα(G)=uvE(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)αΔ2αuvE(G)(d2αu+d2αv)=Δ2αuV(G)d2α+1u=Δ2αM2α+11(G).
    $

    If $ G $ is a regular graph, then each lower bound and its corresponding upper bound are the same, and both are equal to $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) $.

    Assume now that the equality in either the first or second bound holds. The previous argument gives that we have either $ d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha} = 2 \Delta^{2 \alpha} $ for any $ uv \in E(G) $ or $ d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha} = 2 \delta^{2 \alpha} $ for any $ uv \in E(G) $. Since $ \alpha > 0 $, we have $ \delta^{2 \alpha} \le d_u^{2 \alpha}, d_v^{2 \alpha} \le \Delta^{2 \alpha} $, and we conclude that $ d_u = d_v = \Delta $ for any $ uv\in E(G) $, or $ d_u = d_v = \delta $ for any $ uv\in E(G) $. Hence, $ G $ is a regular graph.

    Finally, assume that the equality in either the third or fourth bound holds. The previous argument gives that we have either $ (d_u d_v)^{ \alpha} = \delta^{2 \alpha} $ for any $ uv \in E(G) $ or $ (d_u d_v)^{ \alpha} = \Delta^{2 \alpha} $ for any $ uv \in E(G) $. Since $ \alpha > 0 $, we have $ \delta^{ \alpha} \le d_u^{ \alpha}, d_v^{ \alpha} \le \Delta^{ \alpha} $, and we conclude that $ d_u = d_v = \delta $ for any $ uv\in E(G) $, or $ d_u = d_v = \Delta $ for every $ uv\in E(G) $. Therefore, $ G $ is a regular graph.

    We will need the following technical result.

    Lemma 3. Let $ 0 < a < A $. Then

    $ a \le \frac{x^{2}+y^{2}}{x + y} \le A $

    for every $ a \le x, y \le A $.The lower bound is attained if and only if $ x = y = a $.The upper bound is attained if and only if $ x = y = A $.

    Proof. If $ a \le x, y \le A $, then $ ax+ay\le x^{2}+y^{2} \le Ax+Ay $, and the statement holds.

    A large kind of topological indices, named Adriatic indices, was introduced in [14,15]. Twenty of them were selected as significant predictors of chemical properties. One of them, the inverse sum indeg index, defined by

    $ ISI(G) = \sum\limits_{uv\in E(G)} \frac{d_u\, d_v}{d_u + d_v} = \sum\limits_{uv\in E(G)} \frac{1}{\frac{1}{d_u} + \frac{1}{d_v}}\, . $

    appears in [14,15] as a good predictor of total surface area of octane isomers.

    Next, we relate $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) $ with the variable inverse sum deg index defined, for each $ a \in \mathbb{R} $, as

    $ ISD_a(G) = \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} \frac{1}{d_u^a + d_v^a} \, . $

    Note that $ ISD_{-1} $ is the inverse sum indeg index $ ISI $.

    Theorem 4. If $ G $ is a graph with $ m $ edges and minimum degree $ \delta $, and $ \alpha > 0 $, then

    $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) \ge \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha} m^2}{ISD_{- \alpha}(G)} \, , $

    and the equality in the bound holds if and only if $ G $ is regular.

    Proof. Lemma 3 gives

    $ \delta^{ \alpha} \le \frac{x^{2 \alpha}+y^{2 \alpha}}{x^{ \alpha} + y^{ \alpha}} \le \Delta^{ \alpha}, \qquad \frac1{x^{2 \alpha}+y^{2 \alpha}} \le \frac{ \delta^{- \alpha}}{x^{ \alpha} + y^{ \alpha}} \, , \qquad \frac1{d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha}} \le \frac{ \delta^{- \alpha}}{d_u^{ \alpha} + d_v^{ \alpha}} \, , $

    for every $ \delta \le x, y \le \Delta $. This last inequality and Cauchy-Schwarz inequality give

    $ m2=(uvE(G)1)2=(uvE(G)(d2αu+d2αvdαudαv)1/2(dαudαvd2αu+d2αv)1/2)2uvE(G)d2αu+d2αvdαudαvuvE(G)dαudαvd2αu+d2αvδαSDDα(G)uvE(G)dαudαvdαu+dαv=δαSDDα(G)uvE(G)1dαu+dαv=δαSDDα(G)ISDα(G).
    $

    If $ G $ is a regular graph, then $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) = 2m $, $ ISD_{- \alpha}(G) = m \delta^{ \alpha}/2 $ and the equality in the bound holds.

    Assume now that the equality in the bound holds. Thus, by the previous argument,

    $ \frac1{d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha}} = \frac{ \delta^{- \alpha}}{d_u^{ \alpha} + d_v^{ \alpha}} $

    for any $ uv \in E(G) $. Then Lemma 3 gives $ d_u = d_v = \delta $ for any $ uv\in E(G) $. Hence, $ G $ is a regular graph.

    The modified Narumi-Katayama index is defined by

    $ NK^*(G) = \prod\limits_{u\in V (G)} d_u^{d_u} = \prod\limits_{uv\in E (G)} d_u d_v $

    in [16], inspired in the Narumi-Katayama index [17]. Next, we present an inequality relating $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) $ and $ NK^*(G) $.

    Theorem 5. Let $ G $ be a graph with $ m $ edges and minimum degree $ \delta $, and $ \alpha > 0 $.Then

    $ SDD_ \alpha(G) \ge 2 \delta^{2 \alpha} m NK^*(G)^{- \alpha/m}, $

    and the equality in the bound holds if and only if $ G $ is a regular graph.

    Proof. Since the geometric mean is at most the arithmetic mean, we have

    $ 1mSDDα(G)=1muvE(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=1muvE(G)d2αu+d2αv(dudv)α2δ2α1muvE(G)1(dudv)α2δ2α(uvE(G)1(dudv)α)1/m=2δ2αNK(G)α/m.
    $

    If $ G $ is a regular graph, then

    $ 2 \delta^{2 \alpha} m NK^*(G)^{- \alpha/m} = 2 \delta^{2 \alpha} m \big( \delta^{2 m} \big)^{- \alpha/m} = 2m = SDD_ \alpha(G) . $

    Finally, assume that the equality in the bound holds. The previous argument gives that $ d_u^{2 \alpha}+d_v^{2 \alpha} = 2 \delta^{2 \alpha} $ for any $ uv \in E(G) $. Since $ \alpha > 0 $, we obtain $ \delta^{2 \alpha} \le d_u^{2 \alpha}, d_v^{2 \alpha} $, and we have $ d_u = d_v = \delta $ for any $ uv \in E(G) $. Hence, $ G $ is regular.

    Next, we obtain additional bounds of $ SDD_{ \alpha} $.

    Theorem 6. Let $ G $ be a graph with $ m $ edges, minimum degree $ \delta $ and maximum degree $ \delta+1 $, $ \alpha > 0 $ and let $ A $ be the number of edges $ uv \in E(G) $ with $ d_u \ne d_v $.Then $ A $ is an even integer and

    $ SDD_{ \alpha}(G) = 2m + A \left( \frac{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}}{ \delta^{ \alpha}} + \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha}}{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}} - 2 \right) . $

    Proof. Let $ F = \left\lbrace uv\in E(G):\; d_u \ne d_v \right\rbrace $, then $ A $ is the cardinality of the set $ F $. Since the maximum degree of $ G $ is $ \delta+1 $ and its minimum degree is $ \delta $, if $ uv\in F $, then $ d_u = \delta $ and $ d_v = \delta+1 $ or viceversa, and therefore

    $ \frac{d_u^{ \alpha}}{d_v^{ \alpha}} + \frac{d_v^{ \alpha}}{d_u^{ \alpha}} = \frac{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}}{ \delta^{ \alpha}} + \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha}}{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}} \, . $

    If $ uv\in F^c = E(G) \setminus F $, then $ d_u = d_v = \delta $ or $ d_u = d_v = \delta+1 $, and therefore

    $ \frac{d_u^{ \alpha}}{d_v^{ \alpha}} + \frac{d_v^{ \alpha}}{d_u^{ \alpha}} = 2 . $

    Since there are exactly $ A $ edges in $ F $ and $ m-A $ edges in $ F^c $, we have

    $ SDDα(G)=uvE(G)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=uvFc(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+uvF(dαudαv+dαvdαu)=uvFc2+uvF((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α)=2m2A+A((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α).
    $

    This gives the equality.

    Seeking for a contradiction assume that $ A $ is an odd integer.

    Let $ \Gamma_1 $ be a subgraph of $ G $ obtained as follows: $ \Gamma_1 $ is induced by the $ n_1 $ vertices with degree $ \delta $ in $ V(G) $; denote by $ m_1 $ the number of edges of $ \Gamma_1 $. Handshaking Lemma implies $ n_1 \delta - A = 2m_1 $. Since $ A $ is an odd integer, $ \delta $ is also an odd integer. Thus, $ \delta+1 $ is even.

    Let $ \Gamma_2 $ be the subgraph of $ G $ induced by the $ n_2 $ vertices with degree $ \delta+1 $ in $ V(G) $, and denote by $ m_2 $ the number of edges of $ \Gamma_2 $. Handshaking Lemma implies $ n_2(\delta+1) - A = 2m_2 $, a contradiction, since $ A $ is odd and $ \delta+1 $ is even.

    Thus, we conclude that $ A $ is an even integer.

    We will need the following result in the proof of Theorem 8 below.

    Lemma 7. Given $ \alpha > 0 $, consider the function $ u: (0, \infty) \rightarrow (0, \infty) $ defined as $ u(t) = t^{ \alpha}+t^{- \alpha} $.Then $ u $ strictly decreases on $ (0, 1] $, $ u $ strictly increases on $ [1, \infty) $ and $ u(t) \ge u(1) = 2 $.

    Proof. We have

    $ u'(t) = \alpha t^{ \alpha-1}- \alpha t^{- \alpha-1} = \alpha t^{- \alpha-1}( t^{2 \alpha}-1). $

    Since $ \alpha > 0 $, we have $ u' < 0 $ on $ (0, 1) $ and $ u' > 0 $ on $ (1, \infty) $. This gives the result. The following figure shows the function $ u(t) $ for some values of $ \alpha $.

    Theorem 6 gives the precise value of $ SDD_{ \alpha} $ when $ \Delta = \delta+1 $. Theorem 8 below provides a lower bound when $ \Delta > \delta+1 $.

    Theorem 8. Let $ G $ be a graph with $ m $ edges, minimum degree $ \delta $ and maximum degree $ \Delta > \delta+1 $. Denote by $ A_0, A_1, A_2, $ the cardinality of the subsets of edges $ F_0 = \{ uv \in E(G) : \, d_{u} = \delta, d_{v} = \Delta \} $, $ F_1 = \{ uv \in E(G) : \, d_{u} = \delta, \delta < d_{v} < \Delta \} $, $ F_2 = \{ uv \in E(G) : \, d_{u} = \Delta, \delta < d_{v} < \Delta \} $, respectively. If $ \alpha > 0 $, then

    $ SDDα(G)(mA1A2)(Δαδα+δαΔα)+A1((Δ1)αδα+δα(Δ1)α)+A2(Δα(δ+1)α+(δ+1)αΔα),SDDα(G)2m+A0(Δαδα+δαΔα2)+A1((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α2)+A2(Δα(Δ1)α+(Δ1)αΔα2).
    $

    Proof. Lemma 7 gives that the function

    $ \frac{d_{v}^{ \alpha}}{ \delta^{ \alpha}} + \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha}}{d_{v}^{ \alpha}} = u \left( \frac{d_{v}}{ \delta} \right) $

    is increasing in $ d_{v} \in [\delta+1, \Delta-1] $ and so,

    $ \frac{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}}{ \delta^{ \alpha}} + \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha}}{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}} \le \frac{d_{v}^{ \alpha}}{ \delta^{ \alpha}} + \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha}}{d_{v}^{ \alpha}} \le \frac{( \Delta-1)^{ \alpha}}{ \delta^{ \alpha}} + \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha}}{( \Delta-1)^{ \alpha}} \, , $

    for every $ uv \in F_1 $.

    In a similar way, Lemma 7 gives that the function

    $ \frac{ \Delta^{ \alpha}}{d_{v}^{ \alpha}} + \frac{d_{v}^{ \alpha}}{ \Delta^{ \alpha}} = u \left( \frac{d_{v}}{ \Delta} \right) $

    is decreasing in $ d_{v} \in [\delta+1, \Delta-1] $ and so,

    $ \frac{ \Delta^{ \alpha}}{( \Delta-1)^{ \alpha}} + \frac{( \Delta-1)^{ \alpha}}{ \Delta^{ \alpha}} \le \frac{ \Delta^{ \alpha}}{d_{v}^{ \alpha}} + \frac{d_{v}^{ \alpha}}{ \Delta^{ \alpha}} \le \frac{ \Delta^{ \alpha}}{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}} + \frac{( \delta+1)^{ \alpha}}{ \Delta^{ \alpha}} \, , $

    for every $ uv \in F_2 $.

    Also,

    $ 2 \le \frac{d_{u}^{ \alpha}}{d_{v}^{ \alpha}} + \frac{d_{v}^{ \alpha}}{d_{u}^{ \alpha}} \le \frac{ \Delta^{ \alpha}}{ \delta^{ \alpha}} + \frac{ \delta^{ \alpha}}{ \Delta^{ \alpha}} $

    for any $ uv \in E(G) $.

    We obtain

    $ SDDα(G)=uvE(G)(F0F1F2)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+uvF0(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+uvF1(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+uvF2(dαudαv+dαvdαu)uvE(G)(F0F1F2)2+uvF0(Δαδα+δαΔα)+uvF1(dαvδα+δαdαv)+uvF2(Δαdαv+dαvΔα).
    $

    Hence,

    $ SDDα(G)2m2A02A12A2+A0(Δαδα+δαΔα)+A1((δ+1)αδα+δα(δ+1)α)+A2(Δα(Δ1)α+(Δ1)αΔα).
    $

    We also have

    $ SDDα(G)=uvE(G)(F1F2)(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+uvF1(dαudαv+dαvdαu)+uvF2(dαudαv+dαvdαu)(mA1A2)(Δαδα+δαΔα)+A1((Δ1)αδα+δα(Δ1)α)+A2(Δα(δ+1)α+(δ+1)αΔα).
    $

    Here we deal with two classes of random graphs $ G $: Erdös-Rényi (ER) graphs $ G(n, p) $ and bipartite random (BR) graphs $ G(n_1, n_2, p) $. ER graphs are formed by $ n $ vertices connected independently with probability $ p \in [0, 1] $. While BR graphs are composed by two disjoint sets, sets 1 and 2, with $ n_1 $ and $ n_2 $ vertices each such that there are no adjacent vertices within the same set, being $ n = n_1+n_2 $ the total number of vertices in the bipartite graph. The vertices of the two sets are connected randomly with probability $ p \in [0, 1] $. Another work in this spirit is [18].

    We stress that the computational study of the variable symmetric division deg index we perform below is justified by the random nature of the graph models we want to explore. Since a given parameter set $ (n, p) $ [$ (n_1, n_2, p) $] represents an infinite-size ensemble of ER graphs [BR graphs], the computation of $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ on a single graph is irrelevant. In contrast, the computation of $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ (where $ \left < \cdot \right > $ indicates ensemble average) over a large number of random graphs, all characterized by the same parameter set $ (n, p) $ [$ (n_1, n_2, p) $], may provide useful average information about the full ensemble. This computational approach, well known in random matrix theory studies, is not widespread in studies involving topological indices, mainly because topological indices are not commonly applied to random graphs; for very recent exceptions see [19,20,21,22].

    From the definition of the variable symmetric division deg index, see Eq (1.1), we have that:

    (i) For $ \alpha = 0 $, $ \left < SDD_0(G)\right > $ gives twice the average number of edges of the ER graph. That is,

    $ SDD0(G)=uvE(G)(d0ud0v+d0vd0u)=uvE(G)(1+1)=2|E(G)|=n(n1)p.
    $
    (3.1)

    (ii) When $ np\gg 1 $, we can approximate $ d_u \approx d_v \approx \left < d \right > $, then

    $ SDDα(G)uvE(G)(1α+1α)=uvE(G)2=2|E(G)|=n(n1)p.
    $
    (3.2)

    (iii) By recognizing that the average degree of the ER graph model reads as

    $ d=(n1)p,
    $
    (3.3)

    we can rewrite Eq (3.2) as

    $ SDDα(G)nd.
    $
    (3.4)

    We stress that Eq (3.4) is expected to be valid for $ np \gg 1 $.

    In Figure 2(a) we plot $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ as a function of the probability $ p $ of ER graphs of size $ n = 500 $. All averages in Figure 2 are computed over ensembles of $ 10^7/n $ random graphs. In Figure 2(a) we show curves for $ \alpha\in[0, 4] $. The dashed-magenta curve corresponds to the case $ \alpha = 0 $, which coincides with Eq (3.1). Moreover, we observe that

    $ \left < SDD_{\alpha\le 0.5}(G) \right > \approx \left < SDD_0(G) \right > = n(n-1) p \, . $
    Figure 1.  Representations of the function $ u(t) $ of Lemma 7 for: $ \alpha = 1/4 $ (yellow), $ \alpha = 1/2 $ (green), $ \alpha = 1 $ (red) and $ \alpha = 2 $ (blue).
    Figure 2.  (a) Average variable symmetric division deg index $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ as a function of the probability $ p $ of Erdös-Rényi graphs of size $ n = 500 $. Here we show curves for $ \alpha\in[0, 4] $ in steps of $ 0.5 $ (the arrow indicates increasing $ \alpha $). The dashed-magenta curve corresponds to the case $ \alpha = 0 $. (b) $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ as a function of the probability $ p $ of ER graphs of three different sizes: $ n = 125 $, 250 and 500. (c) $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > /n $ as a function of the average degree $ \left < d \right > $; same curves as in panel (b). The inset in (c) is the enlargement of the cyan rectangle. (d)–(f) Equivalent figures to (a)–(c), respectively, but for bipartite random graphs composed by sets of equal sizes: in (d) $ n_1 = n_2 = 500 $ while in (e), (f) $ n_1 = n_2 = \{125, 250, 500\} $.

    However, once $ \alpha > 0.5 $, the curves $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ versus $ p $ deviate from Eq (3.1), at intermediate values of $ p $, in the form of a bump which is enhanced the larger the value of $ \alpha $ is. Also, in Figure 2(a) we can clearly see that Eq (3.2) is satisfied when $ np\gg 1 $, as expected.

    Now, in Figure 2(b) we present $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ as a function of the probability $ p $ of ER graphs of three different sizes. It is clear from this figure that the blocks of curves, characterized by the different graph sizes (and shown in different colors), display similar curves but displaced on both axes. Moreover, the fact that these blocks of curves, plotted in semi-log scale, are shifted the same amount on both $ x- $ and $ y- $axis when doubling $ n $ make us anticipate the scaling of $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $. We stress that other average variable degree-based indices on ER random graphs (normalized to the graph size) have been shown to scale with the average degree [22]. Indeed, this statement is encoded in Eq (3.4), that we derived for $ np\gg 1 $ but should serve as the global scaling equation for $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $.

    Therefore, in Figure 2(c) we show $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > /n $ as a function of the average degree $ \left < d \right > $ where the same curves of Figure 2(b) have been used. There we verify the global scaling of $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $, as anticipated in Eq (3.4), by noticing that the blocks of curves (painted in different colors) for different graph sizes fall on top of each other.

    Also, from Figure 2(a)(c) we observe that the inequality of Theorem 1 is extended to the average variable symmetric division deg index on random graphs:

    $ SDDα(G)SDDβ(G),0<α<β;
    $
    (3.5)

    see e.g., the blue arrow in Figure 2(a) which indicates increasing $ \alpha $. Here, the equality is attained if and only if $ p = 1 $. However, we have observed that $ \left < SDD_{ \alpha}(G) \right > \approx \left < SDD_{ \beta}(G) \right > $ already for $ \left < d \right > \ge 10 $.

    In Figure 2(d), (e) we present curves of the $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ as a function of the probability $ p $ of BR graphs. For simplicity we show results for BR graphs composed by sets of equal sizes $ n_1 = n_2 $. In Figure 2(d) we consider the case of $ n_1 = n_2 = 500 $ while in (e) we report $ n_1 = n_2 = \{125, 250, 500\} $. In both figures we show curves for $ \alpha\in[0, 4] $ in steps of $ 0.5 $.

    Since edges in a bipartite graph join vertices of different sets, and we are labeling here the sets as sets 1 and 2, we replace $ d_u $ by $ d_1 $ and $ d_v $ by $ d_2 $ in the expression for the $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ index below. Thus,

    (i) For $ \alpha = 0 $, $ \left < SDD_0(G)\right > $ gives twice the average number of edges of the BG graph. That is,

    $ SDD0(G)=E(G)(d01d02+d02d01)=E(G)(1+1)=2|E(G)|=2n1n2p.
    $
    (3.6)

    (ii) When both $ n_1p\gg 1 $ and $ n_2p\gg 1 $, we can approximate $ d_1 \approx \left < d_1 \right > $ and $ d_2 \approx \left < d_2 \right > $, then

    $ SDDα(G)E(G)(d1αd2α+d2αd1α)=|E(G)|(d1αd2α+d2αd1α).
    $
    (3.7)

    (iii) In the case we consider in Figure 2(d)(f), where $ n_1 = n_2 = n/2 $, so that $ \left < d_1 \right > = \left < d_2 \right > = \left < d \right > $, Equation (3.7) reduces to

    $ SDDα(G)2|E(G)|=2n1n2p=n22p.
    $
    (3.8)

    (iv) By recognizing that $ \left < d \right > = np/2 $ we can rewrite Eq (3.8) as

    $ SDDα(G)nd.
    $
    (3.9)

    We stress that Eq (3.9) is expected to be valid for $ np \gg 1 $. We also note that Eq (3.9) has exactly the same form as Eq (3.4).

    From Figure 2(d), (e) we note that

    $ \left < SDD_{\alpha\le 0.5}(G) \right > \approx \left < SDD_0(G) \right > = 2n_1n_2 p \, , $

    see the dashed-magenta curve in Figure 2(d). But once $ \alpha > 0.5 $, the curves $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $ versus $ p $ deviate from Eq (3.6), at intermediate values of $ p $, in the form of bumps which are enhanced the larger the value of $ \alpha $ is. These bumps make clear the validity of inequality (3.5) on BR graphs; see e.g., the blue arrow in Figure 2(d) which indicates increasing $ \alpha $.

    Finally, following the scaling analysis made in the previous subsection for ER graphs, in Figure 2(f) we plot the $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > /n $ as a function of the average degree $ \left < d \right > $ where the same data sets of Figure 2(e) have been used. Thus we verify that $ \left < SDD_\alpha(G) \right > $/n scales with $ \left < d \right > $, as anticipated in Eq (3.9); that is, the blocks of curves (painted in different colors) for different graph sizes coincide.

    In this paper we have performed analytical and computational studies of the variable symmetric division deg index $ SDD_\alpha(G) $. First, we provided a monotonicity property and obtained new inequalities connecting $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ with other well–known topological indices such as the variable inverse sum deg index, as well as the the modified Narumi-Katayama index. Then, we apply the index $ SDD_\alpha(G) $ on two ensembles of random graphs: Erd\H{o}s-Rényi graphs and bipartite random graphs. Thus, we computationally showed, for both random graph models, that the ratio $ \langle SDD_\alpha(G) \rangle/n $ is a function of the average degree $ \langle d \rangle $ only ($ n $ being the order of the graph). We note that this last result, also observed for other variable topological indices [22], is valid for random bipartite graphs only when they are formed by sets of the same size.

    Since many important topological indices can be written as

    $ X(G) = \sum\limits_{uv \in E(G)} F(d_u, d_v), $

    an open problem is to extend the results of this paper to other indices of this kind.

    J. A. M.-B. has been supported by CONACyT (Grant No. CB-2016-286633-F). J. M. R. and J. M. S. have been supported by a grant from Agencia Estatal de Investigación (PID2019-106433GBI00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033), Spain. J. M. R. has been supported by the Madrid Government (Comunidad de Madrid-Spain) under the Multiannual Agreement with UC3M in the line of Excellence of University Professors (EPUC3M23), and in the context of the V PRICIT (Regional Programme of Research and Technological Innovation).

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

    [1] Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, et al. (1997) Human domination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277: 494-499. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5325.494
    [2] DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices: Balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ 2: 249-257.
    [3] IPCC (2000) In: Watson, R.T., Noble, I.R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., Dokken, D.J. (Eds.), Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, p. 377.
    [4] Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP, et al. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570-574.
    [5] Pielke RA (2005) Land use and climate change. Science 310: 1625-1626. doi: 10.1126/science.1120529
    [6] Alcamo J (2008) Searching for the future of land: scenarios from the local to global scale. In: Alcamo J (Ed.), Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
    [7] USGCRP, The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021: A Strategic Plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. 132 pp. The U.S. Global Change Research Program Washington, D.C., 2012, Available from: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/strategic-plan/2012/usgcrp-strategic-plan-2012.pdf
    [8] Strengers B, Leemans R, Eickhout B, et al. (2004) The land-use projections and resulting emissions in the IPCC SRES scenarios as simulated by the IMAGE 2.2 model. GeoJournal 61: 381-393. doi: 10.1007/s10708-004-5054-8
    [9] National Research Council (2014) Advancing Land Change Modeling: Opportunities and Research Requirements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
    [10] Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, et al. (2006) Modeling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440: 520-523.
    [11] Eastman JR (2007) The Land Change Modeler, a software extension for ArcGIS. Worcester, Mass.: Clark University.
    [12] Matthews RB, Gilbert NG, Roach A, et al. (2007) Agent-based land-use models: A review of applications. Landscape Ecol 22: 1447-1459.
    [13] Acosta-Michlik L, Espaldon V (2008) Assessing vulnerability of selected farming communities in the Philippines based on behavioural model of agent's adaptation to global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 18: 554-563. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.08.006
    [14] Brown DG, Page SE, Riolo R, et al. (2004) Agent based and analytical modeling to evaluate the effectiveness of greenbelts. Environ Modell Softw 19: 1097-1109.
    [15] Verburg PH (2002) Land use change modelling at the regional scale: The CLUE-S model. Environ Manage 30: 391-405. doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2630-x
    [16] Burnham BO (1973) Markov intertemporal land use simulation model. South J Agr Econ 5: 253-258.
    [17] Baker WL (1989) A review of models of landscape change. Landscape Ecol 2: 111-133.
    [18] Turner M (1987) Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: A comparison of 3 transition models. Landscape Ecol 1: 29-36.
    [19] Daniels CJ, Frid L (2011) Predicting landscape vegetation dynamics using state-and-transition simulation models, In Proceedings of the First Landscape State-and-Transition Simulation Modeling Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 14-16 June 2011; Kerns, B.K., Shlisky, A.J., Daniel, C.J., Eds.; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: Portland, OR, USA, 2012; pp.5-22.
    [20] Sleeter BM, Sohl T, Bouchard MA, et al. (2012) Scenarios of land use and land cover change in the conterminous U.S.: Utilizing the special report on emission scenarios at ecoregional scales. Glob Environ Chang 22: 896-914.
    [21] Omernik JM (1987) Ecoregions of the conterminous U.S. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 77: 118-125. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00149.x
    [22] Sleeter BM, Liu J, Daniel C, et al. (2015) An integrated approach to modeling changes in land use, land cover, and disturbance and their impact on ecosystem carbon dynamics: a case study in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. AIMS Environ Sci 2: 577-606.
    [23] Nakicenovic N, Swart R (Eds.) (2000) IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios; Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK; p. 570.
    [24] Sleeter BM, Sohl T, Loveland T, et al. (2013) Land-cover change in the conterminous United States from 1973 to 2000. Glob Environ Chang 23: 733-748. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.03.006
    [25] EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Primary distinguishing characteristics of Level III ecoregions of the continental United States. Environmental Protection Agency, 1999. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm
    [26] Gallant AL, Loveland T, Sohl T, et al. (2004) Using an ecoregion framework to analyze land-cover and land-use dynamics. Environ Manage 34: S89-S110.
    [27] Soulard CE and Acevedo W, Multi-temporal harmonization of independent land-use/land-cover datasets for the conterminous U.S. American Geophysical Union, 2013. Available from: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.B41E0448S
    [28] McConnell WJ, Moran EF (Eds.) (2001) Meeting in the middle: the challenge of meso-level integration. An international workshop on the harmonization of land-use and land-cover classification. LUCC Report Series No. 5. Anthropological Center for Training and Research on Global Environmental Change - Indiana University and LUCC International Project Office, Louvain-la-Neuve.
    [29] Jansen LJM, Groom GB, Carrai G (2008) Land-cover harmonisation and semantic similarity: some methodological issues. J Land Use Sci 3:131-160. doi: 10.1080/17474230802332076
    [30] Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, et al. (2007) Completion of the 2001 national land cover database for the conterminous U.S. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 73: 337-341.
    [31] Vogelmann JE, Howard SM, Yang L, et al. (2001) Completion of the 1990's national land cover data set for the conterminous U.S. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 67: 650-662.
    [32] Fry J, Xian G, Jin S, et al. (2011) Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous U.S. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 77:858-864.
    [33] Jin S, Yang L, Danielson P (2013) A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sens Environ 132: 159-175. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2013.01.012
    [34] LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Existing Vegetation Type layer. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, 2013 June last update. Available from: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ (accessed 1 October 2012)
    [35] U.S Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (2011) Cropland Data Layer. Available from http://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed on 1 October 2012).
    [36] U.S. Geological Survey, Gap Analysis Program (GAP). May 2011. National Land Cover, Version 2
    [37] Hansen MC, Potapov PV, Moore R, et al. (2013) High-Resolution Global Maps of 21st-Century Forest Cover Change. Science 342: 850-853. doi: 10.1126/science.1244693
    [38] LANDFIRE: LANDFIRE Disturbance (1999-2010). U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey, 2013 June last update. Available from: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ (accessed on 1 October 2012).
    [39] Roy DP, Ju J, Kline K, et al. (2010) Web-enabled Landsat data (WELD): Landsat ETM+ composited mosaics of the conterminous U.S. Remote Sens Environ 114: 35-49. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.011
    [40] Eidenshink J, Schwind B, Brewer K, et al. (2007) A project for monitoring trends in burn severity. Fire Ecol Spec Issue 3: 3-21.
    [41] Anderson JR, Hardy E, Roach JT, et al. (1976) A land use and land cover classification scheme for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. USA, Professional Paper 964.
    [42] Pan Y, Chen JM, Birdsey R, et al. (2011) Age structure and disturbance legacy of North American forests. Biogeosciences 8: 715-732. doi: 10.5194/bg-8-715-2011
    [43] Masek JG, Huang R, Wolfe R, et al. (2008) North American forest disturbance mapped from a decadal Landsat record. Remote Sens Environ 112: 2914- 2926. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2008.02.010
    [44] Huang C, Goward SN, Masek JG, et al. (2010) An automated approach for reconstructing recent forest disturbance history using dense Landsat time series stacks. Remote Sens Environ 114: 183-198. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2009.08.017
    [45] Tobler W (1970) A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Econ Geogr 46: 234-240. doi: 10.2307/143141
    [46] U.S. Geological Survey GAP. Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US), version 1.3 Combined Feature Class. 2012. Available from: http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/ (accessed on 13 November 2013).
    [47] Natural Resources Conservation Service. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2011. Available from: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov (accessed on 22 November 2013).
    [48] Sleeter R, Gould M (2007) Geographic Information System Software to Remodel Population Data Using Dasymetric Mapping Methods; U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 11-C2; U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. USA, p. 15.
    [49] Wilson BT, Woodall CW, DM Griffith (2013) Imputing forest carbon stock estimates from inventory plots to a nationally continuous coverage. Carbon Balance Manag 8: 1-15.
    [50] IMAGE team (2001) The IMAGE 2.2 implementation of the SRES scenarios: climate change scenarios resulting from runs with several GCMs. RIVM CD-ROM Publication 481508019, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven.
    [51] Van Vuuren D, Edmonds JA, Kainuma M, et al. (2011) The Representative Concentration Pathways: An Overview. Climatic Change 109: 5-31. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
    [52] Wilson TS, Sleeter BM, Sleeter RR, et al. (2014) Land use threats and protected areas: a scenario-based, landscape level approach. Land 3: 362-389. doi: 10.3390/land3020362
    [53] Sleeter BM (2008) Late 20th century land change in the Central California Valley Ecoregion. California Geographer 48:27-60
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Bahati Erick, Maranya Mayengo, Modelling the dynamics of Cassava Mosaic Disease with non-cassava host plants, 2022, 33, 23529148, 101086, 10.1016/j.imu.2022.101086
    2. Caihong Song, Ning Li, Dynamic analysis and bifurcation control of a fractional-order cassava mosaic disease model, 2022, 1598-5865, 10.1007/s12190-022-01809-9
    3. Nabeela Anwar, Shafaq Naz, Muhammad Shoaib, Reliable numerical treatment with Adams and BDF methods for plant virus propagation model by vector with impact of time lag and density, 2022, 8, 2297-4687, 10.3389/fams.2022.1001392
    4. Geofrey Sikazwe, Rosita E.E. Yocgo, Pietro Landi, David M. Richardson, Cang Hui, Managing whitefly development to control cassava brown streak virus coinfections, 2024, 493, 03043800, 110753, 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2024.110753
    5. Tariq Q. S. Abdullah, Gang Huang, Wadhah Al-Sadi, Yasser Aboelmagd, Wael Mobarak, Fractional Dynamics of Cassava Mosaic Disease Model with Recovery Rate Using New Proposed Numerical Scheme, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 2386, 10.3390/math12152386
    6. Sireepatch Sangsawang, Usa Humphries, Amir Khan, Puntani Pongsumpun, Sensitivity analysis and optimal control for the dynamic mathematical model of cassava mosaic disease, 2024, 14, 2158-3226, 10.1063/5.0207497
    7. E. Azroul, N. Kamali, M. Shimi, Novel insights into Cassava mosaic disease using Caputo fractional derivative: modeling and analysis, 2025, 0003-6811, 1, 10.1080/00036811.2025.2509314
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2015 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7324) PDF downloads(1208) Cited by(4)

Figures and Tables

Figures(10)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog