Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q1
WOS
Q2
Impact factor
3.4
SJR
0.734
CiteScore
5.9
Categories
Agronomy and Crop Science
Plant Science
Soil Science
Areas
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
Years of issue
2010-2025
journal names
Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
J SOIL SCI PLANT NUT
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
(2423 citations)

Agronomy
(1171 citations)

Frontiers in Plant Science
(837 citations)
Top-3 organizations

University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
(66 publications)

Northwest A&F University
(56 publications)

Northwest University
(51 publications)

University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
(63 publications)

Northwest A&F University
(52 publications)

Northwest University
(47 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 12841
Q1

Habitat and connectivity‐based conservation strategies for the vulnerable Lorestan newt (Neurergus kaiseri) in the Zagros Mountains, Iran
Vaissi S., Mohammadi A.
AbstractThe Lorestan newt (Neurergus kaiseri) is a vulnerable amphibian endemic to the Zagros Mountains in Iran. This study aimed to identify core habitats, assess potential dispersal corridors, and evaluate the effectiveness of current conservation efforts. Ensemble species distribution models predicted suitable habitat across the newt's range, with annual precipitation and temperature as the most influential factors. Connectivity simulations revealed critical core habitats, primarily concentrated in the northwestern region, that spanned 2,233.43 km², none of which fell within designated protected areas. Corridor analysis identified viable dispersal pathways between northern and southern populations, but only 2.77% of the corridor network was protected. Roads and dams frequently intersected putative corridors, posing significant fragmentation threats. These results underscore the urgent need for expanded conservation efforts, including the establishment of new protected areas and measures to mitigate habitat fragmentation, to ensure the connectivity and long‐term viability of Lorestan newt populations. Our findings provide valuable insights to guide future conservation strategies for this endangered species.
Q1

Recovery and genetics of Mexican wolves: a comment on Clement et al.
Hedrick P.W., Phillips M., Carroll C., Lacy R., Anderson G., Fredrickson R., Smith D.W.
Q1
Journal of Wildlife Management
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Feeding habits of sympatric aoudad (Ammotragus lervia) and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) in West Texas
Parikh G.L., Etchart J.L., O'Shaughnessy R., Harveson L.A., Cain J.W.
AbstractAoudad (Ammotragus lervia), native to northern Africa, were introduced as exotic game animals to the Chihuahuan Desert in West Texas, USA, and have become invasive. Aoudad and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) are adapted to rugged terrain in arid climates, and both persist in desert regions with low primary productivity and limited perennial water availability, which suggests potential for competition for food and water resources. Aoudad are highly adaptable, which could make them more resilient to a changing environment with extreme conditions, providing a competitive edge over bighorn sheep. To evaluate the potential for exploitative competition between invasive aoudad and endemic desert bighorn sheep, we used genetic metabarcoding to assess diet composition using fecal samples collected from adults of each species in the Sierra Vieja Mountains in West Texas. We collected 32 composite samples from aoudad and 27 composite samples for bighorn sheep and identified 88 genera consumed. Bighorn sheep and aoudad diets (as inferred by genera) were most different during the warm‐wet season (16 June–15 October; Kulczynski similarity index = 0.81) and most similar during the warm‐dry season (16 February–15 June; Kulczynski similarity index = 1.05). During the warm‐wet season, the 2 herbivores tended to consume different genera, suggesting the possibility of resource partitioning, with less likelihood of resource partitioning during the warm‐dry season when forage was more limited and diets were similar. Diet diversity, measured by Shannon's diversity index, did not vary substantially between species, but for aoudad it was highest during the warm‐wet season (1.1 ± 0.0.1 [SE]) and lowest during the cool‐dry season (16 October–15 February, 0.9 ± 0.0.1). For bighorn sheep, diet richness was highest during the cool‐dry season (1.1 ± 0.2) and lowest during the warm‐dry season (0.8 ± 0.10). Bighorn sheep may specialize on high‐quality forage species, particularly during the warm‐wet season, while aoudad have a more generalist foraging strategy, although temporal windows for increased competition for food resources likely occur. Aoudad are well‐adapted to low‐quality forage and arid climates, which could increase their competitive ability and compromise bighorn sheep conservation efforts in areas of sympatry.
Q1

Spatially explicit estimates of elk population demographics in North Carolina, USA
Braunstein J.L., Clark J.D., Augustine B.C., Hickman C.R., McVey J., Yarkovich J.
AbstractIn an effort to restore extirpated elk to their historical range, 52 elk were reintroduced to Great Smoky Mountains National Park (GRSM) in North Carolina, USA, during 2001 and 2002. Since their reintroduction, elk numbers have increased, and elk have extended their range beyond GRSM boundaries. We used spatially explicit capture‐recapture (SCR) methods based on fecal DNA to identify individual elk and estimate population abundance (N), apparent survival (φ), per capita recruitment (f), and population growth rate (λ) in western North Carolina. We walked a series of transects during 3 winter field seasons (2020–2022) and collected elk pellets encountered along those transects. We created spatially explicit capture histories and incorporated those data into both closed and open population SCR models. The top performing closed SCR models for males and females estimated density by year and as a function of the scaled distance to the nearest field, with densities decreasing as the distance increased. Combined male and female N were 179 elk (95% CI = 149–215) in 2020, 220 elk (95% CI = 188–256) in 2021, and 240 elk (95% CI = 207–279) in 2022. The top open population model estimated both φ and λ as functions of sex and year. The estimate of φ for males was 0.682 (95% CI = 0.317–0.908) during 2020–2021 and 0.339 (95% CI = 0.152–0.596) during 2021–2022 and for females was 0.953 (95% CI = 0.830–1.000) during 2020–2021 and 0.829 (95% CI = 0.601–1.000) during 2021–2022. The annual population growth rate (λ) for males was 1.127 (95% CI = 0.806–1.575) during 2020–2021 and 0.811 (95% CI = 0.566–1.163) during 2021–2022 and for females was 1.559 (95% CI = 1.162–2.091) during 2020–2021 and 1.122 (95% CI = 0.876–1.437) during 2021–2022. Our elk abundance estimates in areas >300 m from fields were negligible, and we suggest that sampling only the areas in and adjacent to fields in the future will result in reliable but more cost‐efficient population estimates. Confidence intervals for vital rate parameters were wide for our 3‐year dataset, but continued annual pellet sampling will increase sample sizes for vital rate estimation and thus improve precision. If elk herd expansion on public lands is desired, we suggest habitat modification to establish open grasslands adjacent to forests.
Q1

Recovery and genetics of Mexican wolves: a reply to Hedrick et al.
Clement M.J., Oakleaf J.K., Heffelfinger J.R., Gardner C., deVos J., Rubin E.S., Greenleaf A.R., Dilgard B., Gipson P.S.
Q1
Journal of Wildlife Management
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Factors influencing daily nest survival rates of Aleutian terns in the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska
Tengeres J.E., Dugger K.M., Corcoran R.M., Lyons D.E.
AbstractThe Aleutian tern (Onychoprion aleuticus) is a species of high conservation concern in Alaska, USA, owing to large declines at known breeding locations since the 1960s. The small population size and ephemeral behavior of this species have limited the collection of basic biological information and hindered the identification of potential drivers of this decline. Significant unknowns include the factors, and their relative importance, influencing nest survival. To investigate these questions, we estimated daily nest survival (DNS) for 148 nests from 5 breeding colonies during 2017 to 2020 in the Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska with 105 monitored using remote cameras. We used the nest survival model in program MARK to estimate DNS rates as a function of colony location, year, within‐season time trends, vegetation cover and height, and 6 daily weather covariates. Our top model suggested that DNS rates increased with vegetation height, decreased as the season progressed, and included a significant interaction between year and colony. Average nest success (i.e., percent chance that a nest survived to hatch) over the 22‐day incubation period varied by colony but was generally very low, averaging 1.2% (95% CI = 0–11%) in 2017–2018 to 14% (95% CI = 0.1–38%) in 2019–2020 across all colonies. The importance of year in the model suggests that a large‐scale annual driver, like food availability, may have played an important role in this species' breeding success. A severe marine heatwave was present in the Gulf of Alaska during 2014–2016 and our results suggest that some effects of this anomalous event, such as reduced prey availability, lingered even after temperatures returned to normal. Additionally, the variation in DNS across colony locations indicated that local factors, such as predation pressure, may also drive significant variation in Aleutian tern productivity. These findings suggest that a combination of local factors and climate change may be important drivers of the >90% decline in Alaska's breeding population of Aleutian terns.
Q1

Anuran carcass persistence on roads: causes and implications for conservation
Boyle S.P., Balsdon M., Newediuk L., Litzgus J.D., Lesbarrères D.
AbstractRoads are pervasive and ubiquitous landscape features that have substantial and predominantly negative effects on wildlife. Conducting road surveys to count animals that have been struck and killed by vehicles is a common method for estimating the impact of roads on wildlife, especially for species at risk and animals with low road avoidance (i.e., herpetofauna). For road surveys to provide accurate animal mortality data, information about carcass persistence in different environmental contexts and in relation to survey frequency is necessary, but few studies have implemented these data into evaluations of road effects. Using road survey data collected in Ontario, Canada, in 2015 and survival analysis, we quantified anuran carcass (n = 91) persistence and determined the effects of carcass characteristics (size, species, condition), road characteristics (lane position, traffic volume), and environmental characteristics (precipitation, temperature) on carcass persistence on the road. Contrary to previous findings, we found that anuran carcasses persisted on roads longer than expected (5.5 ± 4.4 days, mean ± SD), with some carcasses persisting for up to 30 days. Temperature and precipitation had the greatest influence on the duration of anuran carcass persistence. Carcass condition, (i.e., intact versus partially intact carcasses), species, location on the road, and traffic volume had little to no effect on persistence. We recommend incorporating carcass persistence into road ecology studies, especially in the context of evaluating population‐level impacts of road mortality. Failure to do so could alter estimates of population viability and misinform management decisions.
Q1

Evaluating the effectiveness of retrofitting water control structures with manatee protection systems to reduce mortality
Brightwell K.K., Bassett B.L., Mezich R., Schueller P., Valade J.A., Frohlich R.K.
AbstractMinimizing human‐related manatee mortality is a priority management action for Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) conservation and recovery. Manatees encounter navigational locks and water control structures along travel corridors, and fatal encounters can occur from crushing, impingement, or entrapment that subsequently result in drowning. Extensive mitigation efforts have been made to protect manatees. This study evaluates the effectiveness of manatee protection systems at navigational locks and water control structures using negative binomial regression models and Friedman's tests with pairwise comparisons from 1974–2020 mortality data. Mitigation effort was stratified into 4 groups ranging from no mitigation to fully mitigated. Regression models for 223 structure‐related manatee deaths showed the expected number of annual mortalities was ≤0.26 for all mitigation groups at each structure type. Friedman's tests indicated a difference in mortalities among mitigation efforts for navigational locks (χ22 = 10.75, P = 0.004) and water control structures (χ22 = 16.63, P ≤ 0.001). Mortalities at fully mitigated water control structures were lower than at partially mitigated structures in pairwise testing for both analyses; navigational lock mitigation efforts only differed in Wilcoxon rank sums tests. Combined results show that when current manatee protection systems are functional and protocols are followed, mortality is reduced. While these systems are a conservation achievement, continued re‐evaluation of mitigation efforts and investigation into new technologies are needed to ensure the continued reduction or elimination of structure‐related manatee mortalities.
Q1

Weather, habitat area, connectivity, and number of patches influence breeding ecology of ring‐necked pheasants
Harsh S., Lonsinger R.C., Kauth H.R., Gregory A.J.
AbstractUnderstanding habitat selection is critical in habitat prioritization for species of conservation and management concern. Information on habitat selection is particularly important for grassland bird species whose populations have suffered steep declines over the last few decades. We assessed ring‐necked pheasants' (Phasianus colchicus) habitat selection in a dynamic agricultural landscape. The population dynamics of pheasants are partially related to nest survival, which may be influenced by the quality of nesting habitat. Consequently, knowledge of vegetation composition and structural characteristics associated with the selection and survival of nests would help inform management decisions to improve nest success. We monitored nests from 103 radio‐collared pheasants inhabiting an agricultural landscape in South Dakota, USA, from 2017–2019 to determine the effect of landscape composition and configuration on nest‐site selection and nest survival. We explored nesting behavior at 2 orders of selection: resource selection within the home range (third order) and selection of specific resource items from a resource patch (fourth order). Proportion of row crop and connectivity of row crop was negatively associated with nest‐site selection at the third order. At the fourth order, pheasants tended to select for taller vegetation and greater percent grass cover than at paired random sites. Pheasants also selected areas with more grasslands. A 1% increase in grass cover and proportion of grassland increased the odds of nest‐site selection by 1% and 2%, respectively. Connectivity of row crop patches was negatively associated with daily nest survival. We also evaluated factors affecting pheasant brood‐site selection. A 1‐unit increase in grass cover and Hemiptera biomass increased the odds of brood‐site selection by 4%. The probability of brood‐site selection also increased with fewer row crop patches. Weather played a crucial role in driving nest survival. The consideration of local weather trends and regional variation in habitat can inform habitat management for pheasants. Pheasant populations may benefit from research that identifies thermal landscapes and land management techniques that promote cooler microclimates for nesting and brood‐rearing activities.
Q1

Chronic wasting disease prions on deer feeders and wildlife visitation to deer feeding areas
Huang M.H., Demarais S., Schwabenlander M.D., Strickland B.K., VerCauteren K.C., McKinley W.T., Rowden G., Valencia Tibbitts C.C., Gresch S.C., Lichtenberg S.S., Wolf T.M., Larsen P.A.
AbstractEliminating supplemental feeding is a common regulatory action within chronic wasting disease (CWD) management zones. These regulations target the potential for increased animal‐animal contact and environmental contamination with CWD prions. Prions, the causative agent of CWD, have been detected on feeder surfaces in CWD‐positive, captive deer facilities but not among free‐ranging populations, and information on the relative risk of transmission at anthropogenic and natural food sources is limited. In this study, we established and maintained 13 gravity feeders from September 2022 to March 2023 in a CWD zone in northern Mississippi, USA (apparent prevalence ~30%). We set up feeders up in 3 ways: no exclusion (deer feeders, n = 7), exclusion of deer using fencing with holes cut at the ground‐level to permit smaller wildlife to enter (raccoon feeders, n = 3), and environmental control feeders, which were fully fenced and not filled with feed (control feeders, n = 3). We swabbed feeder spouts at setup and at 4 intervals approximately 6 weeks apart to test for prion contamination via real‐time quaking‐induced conversion (RT‐QuIC). We detected prions 12 weeks after setup on all deer and raccoon feeders. We compared relative transmission risk using camera traps at these feeders, 6 agronomic plantings for wildlife forage (i.e., food plots), and 7 oak mast trees. Weekly visitation rate by white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus; hereafter: deer) differed (P = 0.02) among deer feeders (median = 24.5 deer/week, range = 15.6–65.7), food plots (median = 12.7, range = 3.8–24.7), and mast trees (median = 2.0, range = 0.4–5.1). Contact rates between individual deer also differed between site types (P < 0.01): deer feeders (median = 2.1 deer‐to‐deer contacts/week, range = 0–10.1), food plots (median = 0.1, range = 0–4.0), and mast trees (median = 0, range = 0–0.3). Raccoons also visited feeders at greater rates than food plots and mast trees (P < 0.04). Finally, we swabbed 19 feeders in 2 areas where CWD was newly detected, finding prion contamination on swabs from 4 feeders. We show that deer feeders in free‐ranging populations with high CWD prevalence become contaminated with CWD prions quickly, becoming a potential site of exposure of deer to CWD prions. Our results also demonstrate the ability to find evidence of prion contamination on deer feeders, even in areas where CWD is newly detected.
Q1

Gaps and opportunities in on‐host winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) surveillance in North America
Koser T.M., Déry F., Spitz B., Chenery E.S.
AbstractThe investigation and management of the impacts of winter tick (Dermacentor albipictus) infestations on moose (Alces alces) in North America necessitates coordinated surveillance and intervention efforts. However, variations in parasite surveillance methods and potential biases towards sampling specific host species for this generalist parasite can impede attempts to standardize observed disease patterns across vast regions and into the future. We collected and classified records of winter tick surveillance on ungulate hosts throughout North America to identify trends and biases in species, space, and time, with the aim of identifying gaps and suggesting improvements to existing practices. We conducted a literature review spanning a century of winter tick reports on free‐roaming or wild ungulate hosts in North America, resulting in 125 relevant records. From this sample, we compiled information on host species and surveillance method details and categorized winter tick quantification techniques based on their perceived insight for analyses and interventions, assigned as an ecological information value (Eco‐IV) ranging from 0 to 3. We examined variations in Eco‐IV among free‐roaming ungulates based on species, literature type, and data source. Among the 18 identified ungulate hosts, moose, white‐tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), and elk (Cervus canadensis) were most frequently reported. We observed a higher Eco‐IV for moose, indicating an abundance of species‐specific information, and a lower Eco‐IV (less information available) for methods focusing on white‐tailed deer. Limited sample sizes prevented the identification of patterns of knowledge acquisition for elk. Eco‐IVs in other ungulate species were consistently lower than moose, white‐tailed deer, and elk, regardless of literature type or data source. Exotic and invasive species systematically lacked detailed methods (Eco‐IV = 0). These findings highlight significant information gaps that impede the ability to compare winter tick infestation rates across studies, geographic regions, and host species, thus hindering coordinated management actions. We recommend standardizing winter tick quantification methods for all ungulate host species, specifically other common winter tick hosts such as white‐tailed deer and elk, and increased communication among groups working on tick–host systems to address these gaps.
Q1

Bait trapping of waterfowl increases the environmental contamination of avian influenza virus (AIV)
Andrew C.L., McPhee L., Kuchinski K.S., Wight J., Rahman I., Mansour S., Cortez G.A., Kalhor M., Kenmuir E., Prystajecky N., Hargan K., Lang A.S., Leafloor J.O., Soos C., Ramey A.M., et. al.
AbstractHighly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5Nx clade 2.3.4.4b has circulated in North America since late 2021, resulting in higher rates of morbidity and mortality in wild birds than observed in this region before. The objective of this study was to determine whether baiting, which is widely conducted in Canada and the United States as part of waterfowl management practices (e.g., duck banding), influences the occurrence of avian influenza virus (AIV) in wetlands. We used a quasi‐experimental design, collecting superficial sediment samples (n = 336) and fecal samples (n = 242) from paired baited (treatment) and non‐baited (control) sites at 2 wetlands in Saskatchewan, Canada, between August and September 2022. We visited sampling sites 3 times during the sampling period: prior to the commencement of baiting activities (t0), approximately 14 days after t0 (t1), and 24 days after t0 (t2). We screened samples for AIV using real‐time reverse‐transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT‐PCR) targeting the matrix gene and subjected the PCR‐positive samples to next‐generation sequencing. We used a mixed‐effects logistic regression model to estimate the effect of baiting on the odds of AIV positivity in sediment samples, while controlling for clustering by wetland. At control sites, we did not detect evidence for a difference in the odds of AIV detection in sediment at t1 or t2 versus t0; however, at baited sites, the odds of AIV detection at t1 were 5.43 (95% CI = 1.99, 14.79) times the odds at t0 and at t2 the odds of AIV detection were 8.73 (95% CI = 3.29, 23.18) times the odds at t0. We detected HPAIV clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 in sediment at 1 treatment site following baiting. There was also a trend towards increased fecal AIV positivity and increased fecal and sediment AIV diversity in baited versus non‐baited sites; however, there was insufficient power to determine if these findings were statistically significant. Overall, our results indicate that baiting is associated with localized increases in AIV environmental contamination, with baiting potentially creating concentrated areas of AIV accumulation. As such, wetland baiting activities may pose a risk to wildlife population health through the propagation of AIV in wetlands and the waterfowl using those environments and efforts to replace, refine, or reduce this activity may be warranted depending on local ecosystem contexts and cost‐benefit analyses.
Q1

Reviewers for 2024
Frair J.L., Knipps A.C., Cox A.S.
Q1
Journal of Wildlife Management
,
2025
,
citations by CoLab: 0

Q1

Landscape risk predicts depletion of flooded unharvested corn by waterfowl
Highway C.J., Masto N.M., Blake‐Bradshaw A.G., Keever A.C., Feddersen J.C., Hagy H.M., Combs D.L., Cohen B.S.
AbstractAnimal foraging strategies are formulated in a complex decision‐making matrix that is predicated on balancing energy intake and expenditure within a landscape of predation risk. Game species encounter dynamic risks during hunting season as ephemeral predators (i.e., hunters) alter the predation risk landscape daily and seasonally. Predators and prey often concentrate around food sources during hunting season, further complicating the balance of energy intake and risk minimization for prey species. For example, many wetland managers provide energy‐rich food resources, such as unharvested grain, that attract waterfowl. Hunter access to these areas varies and alters the inherent risk that wintering waterfowl face to use these resources. We hypothesized use and subsequent depletion of unharvested flooded corn fields would be influenced by proximate anthropogenic disturbance and predation risk, shifting the bioenergetic landscape for waterfowl. We first sampled 145 unharvested flooded cornfields under different hunting access regimes to estimate corn biomass in October 2019 and 2020 in western Tennessee, USA. We then returned to 30 of those fields biweekly during fall‐winter 2019–2021 to estimate depletion rates in 60 fields. We modeled depletion rate as a function of hunting risk and forage accessibility by including the variables of corn ear height above water surface, field size, field ownership type, and field distance from sanctuary in our statistical model. Biomass estimates derived from initial surveys indicated private fields that were hunted provided the greatest corn biomass (7,134 ± 448 kg/ha), followed by public fields that were hunted (5,272 ± 320 kg/ha) and finally sanctuaries closed to hunting (3,995 ± 371 kg/ha). Corn biomass was depleted 2–4 times faster on sanctuaries than on hunted fields during November and December but 2 times faster in hunted fields than in sanctuary fields in January. Depletion rates increased as surface water came closer to corn ears but were unaffected by field size or field distance from unhunted sanctuary. Sanctuary fields were devoid of corn by the end of January, whereas 55% of public and 50% of private hunted fields still had corn remaining on 15 March, by which time most ducks had likely initiated migration. Private lands sampled in 2020 contributed nearly 7 times more energy than assumed in the 2015 Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley Joint Venture energetic allocation models. Despite being devoid of hunters at night, hunted lands are not perceived by foraging waterfowl to be nocturnally similar to sanctuary areas during hunting season. In turn, hunted fields were exploited by ducks later in the season when sanctuary resources were scarce, providing available biomass for migrating birds. It may be important for managers to retain water on hunted fields through early spring given the lack of energy‐dense foraging resources available on sanctuary areas. Conservation planners should consider resource depletion as a multiplicative function of hunting risk and abundance when allocating foraging habitat objectives for waterfowl in the non‐breeding season.
Q1

Anticoagulant rodenticides may affect fisher population trends in the northeastern United States
Silveira G., Frair J.L., Cohen J., Watson M., Tate P., Royar K., Bernier C., Schuler K.
AbstractRegrowth of forests across the northeastern United States in recent decades has allowed for range expansion of many forest‐dependent mammals in the region. However, these contemporary forests have smaller patch sizes, putting humans in closer proximity to previously remote forested areas, and different species compositions and structure compared to historical forests. These conditions pose an increased risk of exposure to anthropogenic disturbances and contaminants for forest‐dwelling wildlife. We evaluated the relationship between contemporary forest conditions and anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) on recent population trends for fishers (Pekania pennanti). We acquired a snapshot of recent population trends for fishers across New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire, USA, using standardized catch‐per‐unit‐effort (CPUE) data from the regulated fall harvest spanning 2016‐2020, when harvest regulations remained consistent across the states. We used regression models to relate the probability of CPUE increase to measures of forest habitat (age, structure, productivity), length of winter snow cover, and human disturbance (land use patterns and AR detection). The top model indicated that the probability of CPUE increase declined 43% for every 10% increase in the percent of the population exposed to at least 1 AR and by 24% for every 1‐day increase in the length of winter snow cover, while measures of forest conditions had no significant relationship. The relationship between AR detection and suppressed CPUE increase is compelling, as few mammalian studies effectively link the detection of AR residues in animal tissues to population‐level performance in the wild. Nevertheless, longer time frames are required to fully understand population trends and their drivers across heterogeneous landscapes. We recommend the fisher as a model species for longer‐term monitoring of AR detections and for comparing outcomes of measures potentially designed to reduce AR impacts on wildlife in this region.
Top-100
Citing journals
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
|
Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition
2423 citations, 8.81%
|
|
Agronomy
1171 citations, 4.26%
|
|
Frontiers in Plant Science
837 citations, 3.04%
|
|
Plants
829 citations, 3.01%
|
|
Science of the Total Environment
470 citations, 1.71%
|
|
Journal of Plant Nutrition
434 citations, 1.58%
|
|
Scientific Reports
407 citations, 1.48%
|
|
Sustainability
395 citations, 1.44%
|
|
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
392 citations, 1.43%
|
|
Agriculture (Switzerland)
365 citations, 1.33%
|
|
Plant and Soil
333 citations, 1.21%
|
|
Frontiers in Microbiology
321 citations, 1.17%
|
|
Horticulturae
268 citations, 0.97%
|
|
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry
262 citations, 0.95%
|
|
Journal of Plant Growth Regulation
243 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
241 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Scientia Horticulturae
222 citations, 0.81%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Management
209 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Chemosphere
209 citations, 0.76%
|
|
Applied Soil Ecology
201 citations, 0.73%
|
|
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
201 citations, 0.73%
|
|
Gesunde Pflanzen
190 citations, 0.69%
|
|
BMC Plant Biology
187 citations, 0.68%
|
|
Heliyon
183 citations, 0.67%
|
|
Microorganisms
178 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety
159 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Forests
156 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Journal of Hazardous Materials
149 citations, 0.54%
|
|
Field Crops Research
136 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Silicon
130 citations, 0.47%
|
|
Soil and Tillage Research
126 citations, 0.46%
|
|
Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
121 citations, 0.44%
|
|
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science
120 citations, 0.44%
|
|
PeerJ
119 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Land Degradation and Development
119 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Industrial Crops and Products
118 citations, 0.43%
|
|
South African Journal of Botany
117 citations, 0.43%
|
|
PLoS ONE
117 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Plant Stress
117 citations, 0.43%
|
|
Catena
116 citations, 0.42%
|
|
Environmental Pollution
107 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
107 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Frontiers in Environmental Science
100 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Agricultural Water Management
99 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
98 citations, 0.36%
|
|
Environmental and Experimental Botany
97 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Geoderma
96 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Journal of Soils and Sediments
96 citations, 0.35%
|
|
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
95 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Rhizosphere
94 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Applied Sciences (Switzerland)
89 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Land
84 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Water, Air, and Soil Pollution
82 citations, 0.3%
|
|
European Journal of Agronomy
79 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Environmental Technology and Innovation
78 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Environmental Research
77 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Molecules
76 citations, 0.28%
|
|
Crop and Pasture Science
75 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Acta Physiologiae Plantarum
72 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Water (Switzerland)
72 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology
66 citations, 0.24%
|
|
International Journal of Phytoremediation
66 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Soil Systems
66 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Agriculture and Food Research
65 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Microbiological Research
63 citations, 0.23%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
60 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Cleaner Production
59 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Soil Use and Management
59 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Acta Horticulturae
56 citations, 0.2%
|
|
ACS Omega
56 citations, 0.2%
|
|
International Journal of Plant Production
55 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Eurasian Soil Science
55 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
55 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Antioxidants
54 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Plant Growth Regulation
54 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
54 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Pedosphere
50 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Physiologia Plantarum
50 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Ecological Indicators
49 citations, 0.18%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
47 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
47 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Journal of Integrative Agriculture
47 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Biology and Fertility of Soils
46 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Cereal Research Communications
46 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Environmental Geochemistry and Health
45 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biology
45 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Journal of Fungi
44 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Foods
44 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Microorganisms for Sustainability
44 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture
43 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Agronomy
43 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
42 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Current Microbiology
42 citations, 0.15%
|
|
World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology
42 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Biochar
42 citations, 0.15%
|
|
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
39 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Cogent Food & Agriculture
39 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science
38 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Applied Microbiology
37 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
Citing publishers
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
|
|
Springer Nature
7738 citations, 28.14%
|
|
Elsevier
6534 citations, 23.76%
|
|
MDPI
4938 citations, 17.96%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
1608 citations, 5.85%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
1462 citations, 5.32%
|
|
Wiley
1074 citations, 3.91%
|
|
American Chemical Society (ACS)
246 citations, 0.89%
|
|
CSIRO Publishing
151 citations, 0.55%
|
|
IOP Publishing
144 citations, 0.52%
|
|
Pleiades Publishing
141 citations, 0.51%
|
|
Oxford University Press
138 citations, 0.5%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
132 citations, 0.48%
|
|
PeerJ
130 citations, 0.47%
|
|
IntechOpen
114 citations, 0.41%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
103 citations, 0.37%
|
|
SciELO
101 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
79 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
71 citations, 0.26%
|
|
International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS)
68 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
64 citations, 0.23%
|
|
Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences
50 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Academic Journals
50 citations, 0.18%
|
|
American Society for Microbiology
49 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
49 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
49 citations, 0.18%
|
|
King Saud University
47 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
41 citations, 0.15%
|
|
American Society for Horticultural Science
39 citations, 0.14%
|
|
EDP Sciences
35 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Copernicus
35 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
35 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Canadian Science Publishing
34 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Gabonatermesztesi Kutato Kozhasznu Tarsasag/Cereal Research Non-Profit Company
33 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
30 citations, 0.11%
|
|
IWA Publishing
27 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Science Alert
27 citations, 0.1%
|
|
IGI Global
27 citations, 0.1%
|
|
AIP Publishing
26 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Fundacion Romulo Raggio
23 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Asian Network for Scientific Information
22 citations, 0.08%
|
|
F1000 Research
20 citations, 0.07%
|
|
SAGE
19 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
The Russian Academy of Sciences
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Scientific Societies
14 citations, 0.05%
|
|
American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS)
13 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Soil Science Society of America
12 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Geophysical Union
11 citations, 0.04%
|
|
HACCP Consulting
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
AcademicPres
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
10 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Allerton Press
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Russian Geographical Society
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Korean Society for Microbiology and Biotechnology
9 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Federation of Eurasian Soil Science Societies
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Vytautas Magnus University
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
8 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Emerald
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
International Research and Training Center on Erosion and Sedimentation and China Water and Power Press
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Northeast Forestry University
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Kemerovo State University
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Institute of Experimental Botany
7 citations, 0.03%
|
|
IOS Press
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
The Royal Society
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Scientific Publishers
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
China National Rice Research Institute
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Ecological Society of China
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Escola Superior de Agricultura Luiz de Queiroz
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Annual Reviews
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
National Library of Serbia
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
PAGEPress Publications
6 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Brill
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Crop Science Society of America
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Verlag Eugen Ulmer
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Faculty of Agriculture, Ain-Shams University
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Japanese Society Of Microbial Ecology
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Universidade Estadual de Londrina
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Associacao Brasileira de Tecnologia de Sementes
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
eLife Sciences Publications
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Instituto de Tecnologia do Parana
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
National Research Council Canada
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Journal of Experimental Biology and Agricultural Sciences
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
South Florida Publishing LLC
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Korean Society of Horticultural Science
5 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Pensoft Publishers
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Universia Espana
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE)
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Universidade Federal da Paraiba, Centro de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Departamento de Engenharia Agricola
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Korean Society of Food Science and Technology
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Brazilian Society of Floriculture and Ornamental Plants
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Ustav ekologie lesa SAV
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Alexandria University
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (Co. LTD Ukrinformnauka) (Publications)
4 citations, 0.01%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
|
Publishing organizations
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
|
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
66 publications, 2.34%
|
|
Northwest A&F University
56 publications, 1.98%
|
|
Northwest University
51 publications, 1.81%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
47 publications, 1.66%
|
|
Universidade Estadual Paulista
44 publications, 1.56%
|
|
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
39 publications, 1.38%
|
|
Ain Shams University
36 publications, 1.27%
|
|
Assiut University
35 publications, 1.24%
|
|
Bahauddin Zakariya University
33 publications, 1.17%
|
|
The Islamia University of Bahawalpur
29 publications, 1.03%
|
|
Punjab Agricultural University
29 publications, 1.03%
|
|
Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization
28 publications, 0.99%
|
|
Sultan Qaboos University
27 publications, 0.96%
|
|
China Agricultural University
26 publications, 0.92%
|
|
Austral University of Chile
26 publications, 0.92%
|
|
South China Agricultural University
23 publications, 0.81%
|
|
University of Adelaide
23 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Lanzhou University
23 publications, 0.81%
|
|
Government College University, Faisalabad
22 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi
22 publications, 0.78%
|
|
Urmia University
21 publications, 0.74%
|
|
University of Western Australia
21 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Tanta University
20 publications, 0.71%
|
|
Banaras Hindu University
19 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Guangxi University
19 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Hainan University
18 publications, 0.64%
|
|
Fayoum University
18 publications, 0.64%
|
|
King Saud University
17 publications, 0.6%
|
|
University of Tehran
17 publications, 0.6%
|
|
Huazhong Agricultural University
16 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Northeast Agricultural University
16 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Al-Azhar University
16 publications, 0.57%
|
|
Qingdao Agricultural University
15 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Shandong Agricultural University
15 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Tehran
14 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif University of Agriculture
14 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Nanjing Forestry University
14 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
14 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Southwest University
14 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Sichuan Agricultural University
14 publications, 0.5%
|
|
Shanxi Agricultural University
13 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Yangtze University
13 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Gansu Agricultural University
13 publications, 0.46%
|
|
Tarbiat Modares University
12 publications, 0.42%
|
|
University of the Punjab
12 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Shenyang Agricultural University
12 publications, 0.42%
|
|
Taif University
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
Yangzhou University
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Hohenheim
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
University of Carthage
11 publications, 0.39%
|
|
King Khalid University
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Tabuk
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Isfahan University of Technology
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Lahore
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Aligarh Muslim University
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Payame Noor University
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
University of Agriculture, Peshawar
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Murdoch University
10 publications, 0.35%
|
|
Ankara University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Shiraz University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Government College Women University, Faisalabad
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Lovely Professional University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
University of Maragheh
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Heilongjiang University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Guizhou University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Cairo University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
North-West University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
National Science and Technology Development Agency
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Bangladesh Agricultural University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
Cadi Ayyad University
9 publications, 0.32%
|
|
King Abdulaziz University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Tabriz
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Seed and plant improvement institute
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Bu-Ali Sina University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Shihezi University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Queensland
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Asian Institute of Technology
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Zhejiang A&F University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Henan Agricultural University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Yunnan Agricultural University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Jiangxi Agricultural University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Buenos Aires
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
University of Florida
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
Mohammed VI Polytechnic University
8 publications, 0.28%
|
|
COMSATS University Islamabad
7 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University
7 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
7 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
|
University of Agriculture, Faisalabad
63 publications, 3.03%
|
|
Northwest A&F University
52 publications, 2.5%
|
|
Northwest University
47 publications, 2.26%
|
|
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences
46 publications, 2.21%
|
|
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
38 publications, 1.83%
|
|
Ain Shams University
36 publications, 1.73%
|
|
Universidade Estadual Paulista
35 publications, 1.68%
|
|
Assiut University
33 publications, 1.59%
|
|
Bahauddin Zakariya University
30 publications, 1.44%
|
|
The Islamia University of Bahawalpur
27 publications, 1.3%
|
|
Sultan Qaboos University
27 publications, 1.3%
|
|
Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization
25 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Punjab Agricultural University
25 publications, 1.2%
|
|
China Agricultural University
25 publications, 1.2%
|
|
Government College University, Faisalabad
21 publications, 1.01%
|
|
South China Agricultural University
21 publications, 1.01%
|
|
Lanzhou University
21 publications, 1.01%
|
|
Austral University of Chile
21 publications, 1.01%
|
|
University of Western Australia
20 publications, 0.96%
|
|
Banaras Hindu University
19 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Guangxi University
19 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Tanta University
19 publications, 0.91%
|
|
Pir Mehr Ali Shah Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi
18 publications, 0.87%
|
|
King Saud University
17 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Urmia University
17 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Hainan University
17 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Fayoum University
17 publications, 0.82%
|
|
Al-Azhar University
16 publications, 0.77%
|
|
Qingdao Agricultural University
15 publications, 0.72%
|
|
Shandong Agricultural University
15 publications, 0.72%
|
|
University of Adelaide
15 publications, 0.72%
|
|
University of Tehran
14 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Tehran
14 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Muhammad Nawaz Sharif University of Agriculture
14 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Nanjing Forestry University
14 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Nanjing Agricultural University
14 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Sichuan Agricultural University
14 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Northeast Agricultural University
14 publications, 0.67%
|
|
Huazhong Agricultural University
13 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Shanxi Agricultural University
13 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Gansu Agricultural University
13 publications, 0.63%
|
|
Tarbiat Modares University
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
University of the Punjab
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Southwest University
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Yangtze University
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Shenyang Agricultural University
12 publications, 0.58%
|
|
Taif University
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Yangzhou University
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Hohenheim
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
University of Carthage
11 publications, 0.53%
|
|
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of Tabuk
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of Lahore
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Aligarh Muslim University
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Payame Noor University
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
University of Agriculture, Peshawar
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
Murdoch University
10 publications, 0.48%
|
|
King Khalid University
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Ankara University
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Government College Women University, Faisalabad
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Heilongjiang University
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Guizhou University
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
National Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
National Science and Technology Development Agency
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Cadi Ayyad University
9 publications, 0.43%
|
|
Isfahan University of Technology
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Shiraz University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Lovely Professional University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Seed and plant improvement institute
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Maragheh
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Cairo University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Queensland
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
North-West University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Asian Institute of Technology
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Zhejiang A&F University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Henan Agricultural University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Jiangxi Agricultural University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
University of Florida
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
Mohammed VI Polytechnic University
8 publications, 0.38%
|
|
King Abdulaziz University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
COMSATS University Islamabad
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Bu-Ali Sina University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Anhui Agricultural University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Ohio State University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Kunming University of Science and Technology
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Yunnan Agricultural University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
Bangladesh Agricultural University
7 publications, 0.34%
|
|
University of Kashmir
6 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Cukurova University
6 publications, 0.29%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
|
Publishing countries
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
|
China
|
China, 668, 23.65%
China
668 publications, 23.65%
|
India
|
India, 241, 8.53%
India
241 publications, 8.53%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 195, 6.91%
Brazil
195 publications, 6.91%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 194, 6.87%
Pakistan
194 publications, 6.87%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 162, 5.74%
Iran
162 publications, 5.74%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 145, 5.13%
Egypt
145 publications, 5.13%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 109, 3.86%
Chile
109 publications, 3.86%
|
USA
|
USA, 87, 3.08%
USA
87 publications, 3.08%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 82, 2.9%
Australia
82 publications, 2.9%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 66, 2.34%
Saudi Arabia
66 publications, 2.34%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 56, 1.98%
Germany
56 publications, 1.98%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 54, 1.91%
Spain
54 publications, 1.91%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 54, 1.91%
Italy
54 publications, 1.91%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 43, 1.52%
Turkey
43 publications, 1.52%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 34, 1.2%
Japan
34 publications, 1.2%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 28, 0.99%
Oman
28 publications, 0.99%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 27, 0.96%
Bangladesh
27 publications, 0.96%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 26, 0.92%
Canada
26 publications, 0.92%
|
France
|
France, 24, 0.85%
France
24 publications, 0.85%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 24, 0.85%
Argentina
24 publications, 0.85%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 24, 0.85%
Morocco
24 publications, 0.85%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 24, 0.85%
Mexico
24 publications, 0.85%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 24, 0.85%
Tunisia
24 publications, 0.85%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 22, 0.78%
United Kingdom
22 publications, 0.78%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 20, 0.71%
Thailand
20 publications, 0.71%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 19, 0.67%
Nigeria
19 publications, 0.67%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 18, 0.64%
South Africa
18 publications, 0.64%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 15, 0.53%
Portugal
15 publications, 0.53%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 15, 0.53%
Greece
15 publications, 0.53%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 15, 0.53%
New Zealand
15 publications, 0.53%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 15, 0.53%
Poland
15 publications, 0.53%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 15, 0.53%
Czech Republic
15 publications, 0.53%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 14, 0.5%
Belgium
14 publications, 0.5%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 13, 0.46%
Vietnam
13 publications, 0.46%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 13, 0.46%
Denmark
13 publications, 0.46%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 11, 0.39%
Netherlands
11 publications, 0.39%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 11, 0.39%
Republic of Korea
11 publications, 0.39%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 10, 0.35%
Ghana
10 publications, 0.35%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 10, 0.35%
Kenya
10 publications, 0.35%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 10, 0.35%
Sweden
10 publications, 0.35%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 9, 0.32%
Russia
9 publications, 0.32%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 9, 0.32%
Algeria
9 publications, 0.32%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 9, 0.32%
Ireland
9 publications, 0.32%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 9, 0.32%
Colombia
9 publications, 0.32%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 9, 0.32%
Peru
9 publications, 0.32%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 8, 0.28%
Switzerland
8 publications, 0.28%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 6, 0.21%
Malaysia
6 publications, 0.21%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 6, 0.21%
Ethiopia
6 publications, 0.21%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 5, 0.18%
Austria
5 publications, 0.18%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 5, 0.18%
Hungary
5 publications, 0.18%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 5, 0.18%
Indonesia
5 publications, 0.18%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 5, 0.18%
Jordan
5 publications, 0.18%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 5, 0.18%
Cameroon
5 publications, 0.18%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 4, 0.14%
Estonia
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Afghanistan
|
Afghanistan, 4, 0.14%
Afghanistan
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 4, 0.14%
Israel
4 publications, 0.14%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 4, 0.14%
UAE
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 4, 0.14%
Croatia
4 publications, 0.14%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 3, 0.11%
Bulgaria
3 publications, 0.11%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 3, 0.11%
Venezuela
3 publications, 0.11%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 3, 0.11%
Iraq
3 publications, 0.11%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 3, 0.11%
Qatar
3 publications, 0.11%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 3, 0.11%
Ecuador
3 publications, 0.11%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 2, 0.07%
Ukraine
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 2, 0.07%
Cyprus
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 2, 0.07%
Costa Rica
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 2, 0.07%
Cuba
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 2, 0.07%
Lebanon
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Libya
|
Libya, 2, 0.07%
Libya
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 2, 0.07%
Nepal
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 2, 0.07%
Romania
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 2, 0.07%
Senegal
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 2, 0.07%
Serbia
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 2, 0.07%
Uruguay
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 2, 0.07%
Philippines
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 2, 0.07%
Finland
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 2, 0.07%
Sri Lanka
2 publications, 0.07%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 1, 0.04%
Azerbaijan
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Angola
|
Angola, 1, 0.04%
Angola
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Benin
|
Benin, 1, 0.04%
Benin
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Bolivia
|
Bolivia, 1, 0.04%
Bolivia
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.04%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Burundi
|
Burundi, 1, 0.04%
Burundi
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Zimbabwe
|
Zimbabwe, 1, 0.04%
Zimbabwe
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Cambodia
|
Cambodia, 1, 0.04%
Cambodia
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 1, 0.04%
Kyrgyzstan
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Côte d'Ivoire
|
Côte d'Ivoire, 1, 0.04%
Côte d'Ivoire
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.04%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Myanmar
|
Myanmar, 1, 0.04%
Myanmar
1 publication, 0.04%
|
New Caledonia
|
New Caledonia, 1, 0.04%
New Caledonia
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.04%
Norway
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Panama
|
Panama, 1, 0.04%
Panama
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.04%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.04%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Fiji
|
Fiji, 1, 0.04%
Fiji
1 publication, 0.04%
|
Show all (65 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
|
China
|
China, 639, 30.75%
China
639 publications, 30.75%
|
India
|
India, 228, 10.97%
India
228 publications, 10.97%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 183, 8.81%
Pakistan
183 publications, 8.81%
|
Brazil
|
Brazil, 173, 8.33%
Brazil
173 publications, 8.33%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 143, 6.88%
Iran
143 publications, 6.88%
|
Egypt
|
Egypt, 137, 6.59%
Egypt
137 publications, 6.59%
|
USA
|
USA, 79, 3.8%
USA
79 publications, 3.8%
|
Chile
|
Chile, 73, 3.51%
Chile
73 publications, 3.51%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 72, 3.46%
Australia
72 publications, 3.46%
|
Saudi Arabia
|
Saudi Arabia, 61, 2.94%
Saudi Arabia
61 publications, 2.94%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 49, 2.36%
Germany
49 publications, 2.36%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 46, 2.21%
Spain
46 publications, 2.21%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 45, 2.17%
Italy
45 publications, 2.17%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 38, 1.83%
Turkey
38 publications, 1.83%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 34, 1.64%
Japan
34 publications, 1.64%
|
Oman
|
Oman, 28, 1.35%
Oman
28 publications, 1.35%
|
Bangladesh
|
Bangladesh, 24, 1.15%
Bangladesh
24 publications, 1.15%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 24, 1.15%
Canada
24 publications, 1.15%
|
Morocco
|
Morocco, 24, 1.15%
Morocco
24 publications, 1.15%
|
Tunisia
|
Tunisia, 24, 1.15%
Tunisia
24 publications, 1.15%
|
France
|
France, 23, 1.11%
France
23 publications, 1.11%
|
Argentina
|
Argentina, 20, 0.96%
Argentina
20 publications, 0.96%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 20, 0.96%
United Kingdom
20 publications, 0.96%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 19, 0.91%
Thailand
19 publications, 0.91%
|
Mexico
|
Mexico, 18, 0.87%
Mexico
18 publications, 0.87%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 18, 0.87%
Nigeria
18 publications, 0.87%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 15, 0.72%
South Africa
15 publications, 0.72%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 14, 0.67%
New Zealand
14 publications, 0.67%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 14, 0.67%
Czech Republic
14 publications, 0.67%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 13, 0.63%
Belgium
13 publications, 0.63%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 13, 0.63%
Poland
13 publications, 0.63%
|
Denmark
|
Denmark, 12, 0.58%
Denmark
12 publications, 0.58%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 11, 0.53%
Portugal
11 publications, 0.53%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 11, 0.53%
Greece
11 publications, 0.53%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 11, 0.53%
Netherlands
11 publications, 0.53%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 11, 0.53%
Republic of Korea
11 publications, 0.53%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 10, 0.48%
Ghana
10 publications, 0.48%
|
Kenya
|
Kenya, 10, 0.48%
Kenya
10 publications, 0.48%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 10, 0.48%
Sweden
10 publications, 0.48%
|
Algeria
|
Algeria, 9, 0.43%
Algeria
9 publications, 0.43%
|
Vietnam
|
Vietnam, 9, 0.43%
Vietnam
9 publications, 0.43%
|
Ireland
|
Ireland, 9, 0.43%
Ireland
9 publications, 0.43%
|
Peru
|
Peru, 8, 0.38%
Peru
8 publications, 0.38%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 7, 0.34%
Colombia
7 publications, 0.34%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 7, 0.34%
Switzerland
7 publications, 0.34%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 6, 0.29%
Russia
6 publications, 0.29%
|
Ethiopia
|
Ethiopia, 6, 0.29%
Ethiopia
6 publications, 0.29%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 5, 0.24%
Hungary
5 publications, 0.24%
|
Jordan
|
Jordan, 5, 0.24%
Jordan
5 publications, 0.24%
|
Cameroon
|
Cameroon, 5, 0.24%
Cameroon
5 publications, 0.24%
|
Afghanistan
|
Afghanistan, 4, 0.19%
Afghanistan
4 publications, 0.19%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 4, 0.19%
Indonesia
4 publications, 0.19%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 4, 0.19%
Malaysia
4 publications, 0.19%
|
UAE
|
UAE, 4, 0.19%
UAE
4 publications, 0.19%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 3, 0.14%
Austria
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Venezuela
|
Venezuela, 3, 0.14%
Venezuela
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 3, 0.14%
Israel
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Iraq
|
Iraq, 3, 0.14%
Iraq
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Qatar
|
Qatar, 3, 0.14%
Qatar
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 3, 0.14%
Croatia
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Ecuador
|
Ecuador, 3, 0.14%
Ecuador
3 publications, 0.14%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 2, 0.1%
Estonia
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Bulgaria
|
Bulgaria, 2, 0.1%
Bulgaria
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Lebanon
|
Lebanon, 2, 0.1%
Lebanon
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Libya
|
Libya, 2, 0.1%
Libya
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Nepal
|
Nepal, 2, 0.1%
Nepal
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 2, 0.1%
Romania
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Senegal
|
Senegal, 2, 0.1%
Senegal
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 2, 0.1%
Serbia
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Philippines
|
Philippines, 2, 0.1%
Philippines
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 2, 0.1%
Finland
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Sri Lanka
|
Sri Lanka, 2, 0.1%
Sri Lanka
2 publications, 0.1%
|
Ukraine
|
Ukraine, 1, 0.05%
Ukraine
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Azerbaijan
|
Azerbaijan, 1, 0.05%
Azerbaijan
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Angola
|
Angola, 1, 0.05%
Angola
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Benin
|
Benin, 1, 0.05%
Benin
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Bolivia
|
Bolivia, 1, 0.05%
Bolivia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Brunei
|
Brunei, 1, 0.05%
Brunei
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Burundi
|
Burundi, 1, 0.05%
Burundi
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Zimbabwe
|
Zimbabwe, 1, 0.05%
Zimbabwe
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Cambodia
|
Cambodia, 1, 0.05%
Cambodia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.05%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Kyrgyzstan
|
Kyrgyzstan, 1, 0.05%
Kyrgyzstan
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Costa Rica
|
Costa Rica, 1, 0.05%
Costa Rica
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Côte d'Ivoire
|
Côte d'Ivoire, 1, 0.05%
Côte d'Ivoire
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Cuba
|
Cuba, 1, 0.05%
Cuba
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.05%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Myanmar
|
Myanmar, 1, 0.05%
Myanmar
1 publication, 0.05%
|
New Caledonia
|
New Caledonia, 1, 0.05%
New Caledonia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.05%
Norway
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Panama
|
Panama, 1, 0.05%
Panama
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Slovakia
|
Slovakia, 1, 0.05%
Slovakia
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.05%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Uruguay
|
Uruguay, 1, 0.05%
Uruguay
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Fiji
|
Fiji, 1, 0.05%
Fiji
1 publication, 0.05%
|
Show all (65 more) | |
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
|
2 profile journal articles
Slukovskaya Marina

Kola Science Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences
44 publications,
211 citations
h-index: 9
1 profile journal article
Shrestha Jiban
PhD in Agricultural sciences
48 publications,
432 citations
h-index: 10
Research interests
Plant Science
Plant breeding
Plant genes
Plant genetics
1 profile journal article
Sukhoveeva Olga

Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences
21 publications,
44 citations
h-index: 4
1 profile journal article
Zhang Hai-Lin

China Agricultural University
141 publications,
4 456 citations
h-index: 39
1 profile journal article
Perveen Shagufta

King Saud University

University of the Punjab

Government College University, Faisalabad
160 publications,
2 051 citations
h-index: 22
1 profile journal article
Syaifudin Muhamad
🥼 🤝 🔍
PhD in Agricultural sciences

Shantou University
12 publications,
293 citations
h-index: 6
Research interests
Biology
Environmental Science
Plant Science
1 profile journal article
Steinberg Christian

Humboldt University of Berlin

Kunming University of Science and Technology
267 publications,
11 440 citations
h-index: 53
1 profile journal article
Morgante Verónica
21 publications,
580 citations
h-index: 13
1 profile journal article
Nazeer Dr.
85 publications,
833 citations
h-index: 18
1 profile journal article
Cavani Luciano
58 publications,
1 320 citations
h-index: 22
1 profile journal article
Ramalingam Sathishkumar
PhD in Biological/biomedical sciences, Professor

Bharathiar University
137 publications,
2 166 citations
h-index: 25
1 profile journal article
Romanyà Joan
59 publications,
2 305 citations
h-index: 27