World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
65
Citations
18709
World Ranking
2174
National Ranking
885

Anna M. Michalak publication distribution in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Environmental Sciences in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Anna M. Michalak sits on this spectrum.

41–50 publications: 21 scientists 51–60 publications: 62 scientists 61–70 publications: 133 scientists 71–80 publications: 257 scientists 81–90 publications: 361 scientists 91–100 publications: 440 scientists 101–110 publications: 492 scientists 111–120 publications: 541 scientists 121–130 publications: 617 scientists 131–140 publications: 544 scientists 141–150 publications: 541 scientists 151–160 publications: 539 scientists 161–170 publications: 444 scientists 171–180 publications: 444 scientists 181–190 publications: 400 scientists 191–200 publications: 377 scientists 201–210 publications: 318 scientists 211–220 publications: 283 scientists 221–230 publications: 263 scientists 231–240 publications: 220 scientists 241–250 publications: 217 scientists 251–260 publications: 180 scientists 261–270 publications: 181 scientists 271–280 publications: 155 scientists 281–290 publications: 130 scientists 291–300 publications: 127 scientists 301–310 publications: 130 scientists 311–320 publications: 85 scientists 321–330 publications: 106 scientists 331–340 publications: 80 scientists 341–350 publications: 83 scientists 351–360 publications: 75 scientists 361–370 publications: 69 scientists 371–380 publications: 52 scientists 381–390 publications: 54 scientists 391–400 publications: 56 scientists 401–410 publications: 44 scientists 411–420 publications: 40 scientists 421–430 publications: 36 scientists 431–440 publications: 25 scientists 441–450 publications: 25 scientists 451–460 publications: 32 scientists 461–470 publications: 29 scientists 471–480 publications: 21 scientists 481–490 publications: 26 scientists 491–500 publications: 25 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 18 scientists 521–530 publications: 15 scientists 531–540 publications: 22 scientists 541–550 publications: 12 scientists 551–560 publications: 15 scientists 561–570 publications: 11 scientists 571–580 publications: 19 scientists 581–590 publications: 9 scientists 591–600 publications: 9 scientists 601–610 publications: 7 scientists 611–620 publications: 11 scientists 621–630 publications: 5 scientists 631–640 publications: 5 scientists 641–650 publications: 6 scientists 651–660 publications: 3 scientists 661–670 publications: 3 scientists 671–680 publications: 4 scientists 681–686 publications: 3 scientists 687+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 687+

This scientist: 285 publications — 84th percentile

84% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 687 publications or more.

Anna M. Michalak D-index placement in Environmental Sciences in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Environmental Sciences scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Anna M. Michalak sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 12 scientists 31 D-Index: 26 scientists 32 D-Index: 51 scientists 33 D-Index: 88 scientists 34 D-Index: 123 scientists 35 D-Index: 163 scientists 36 D-Index: 206 scientists 37 D-Index: 267 scientists 38 D-Index: 265 scientists 39 D-Index: 275 scientists 40 D-Index: 321 scientists 41 D-Index: 343 scientists 42 D-Index: 305 scientists 43 D-Index: 336 scientists 44 D-Index: 330 scientists 45 D-Index: 348 scientists 46 D-Index: 291 scientists 47 D-Index: 275 scientists 48 D-Index: 272 scientists 49 D-Index: 273 scientists 50 D-Index: 263 scientists 51 D-Index: 232 scientists 52 D-Index: 266 scientists 53 D-Index: 217 scientists 54 D-Index: 199 scientists 55 D-Index: 177 scientists 56 D-Index: 202 scientists 57 D-Index: 204 scientists 58 D-Index: 166 scientists 59 D-Index: 177 scientists 60 D-Index: 166 scientists 61 D-Index: 152 scientists 62 D-Index: 143 scientists 63 D-Index: 150 scientists 64 D-Index: 124 scientists 65 D-Index: 119 scientists 66 D-Index: 120 scientists 67 D-Index: 118 scientists 68 D-Index: 82 scientists 69 D-Index: 98 scientists 70 D-Index: 94 scientists 71 D-Index: 105 scientists 72 D-Index: 74 scientists 73 D-Index: 84 scientists 74 D-Index: 70 scientists 75 D-Index: 67 scientists 76 D-Index: 78 scientists 77 D-Index: 60 scientists 78 D-Index: 59 scientists 79 D-Index: 52 scientists 80 D-Index: 47 scientists 81 D-Index: 38 scientists 82 D-Index: 48 scientists 83 D-Index: 42 scientists 84 D-Index: 42 scientists 85 D-Index: 43 scientists 86 D-Index: 29 scientists 87 D-Index: 37 scientists 88 D-Index: 29 scientists 89 D-Index: 30 scientists 90 D-Index: 34 scientists 91 D-Index: 20 scientists 92 D-Index: 22 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 19 scientists 95 D-Index: 24 scientists 96 D-Index: 21 scientists 97 D-Index: 20 scientists 98 D-Index: 24 scientists 99 D-Index: 17 scientists 100 D-Index: 17 scientists 101 D-Index: 21 scientists 102 D-Index: 25 scientists 103 D-Index: 18 scientists 104 D-Index: 26 scientists 105 D-Index: 19 scientists 106 D-Index: 15 scientists 107 D-Index: 10 scientists 108 D-Index: 13 scientists 109 D-Index: 15 scientists 110 D-Index: 12 scientists 111 D-Index: 8 scientists 112 D-Index: 7 scientists 113 D-Index: 9 scientists 114 D-Index: 6 scientists 115 D-Index: 12 scientists 116 D-Index: 7 scientists 117 D-Index: 8 scientists 118 D-Index: 3 scientists 119 D-Index: 5 scientists 120 D-Index: 7 scientists 121 D-Index: 2 scientists 122 D-Index: 4 scientists 123 D-Index: 8 scientists 124 D-Index: 7 scientists 125+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 125+

This scientist: 65 D-Index — 78th percentile

78% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 125 D-Index or more.

Overview

Anna M. Michalak is affiliated with Stanford University in the United States and specializes in Environmental Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences. Their work focuses primarily on global and planetary change, atmospheric science, oceanography, water science and technology, and ecology.

Their research addresses several key topics including atmospheric and environmental gas dynamics, climate variability and models, plant water relations and carbon dynamics, marine and coastal ecosystems, hydrology and watershed management studies, atmospheric chemistry and aerosols, and aquatic ecosystems and phytoplankton dynamics.

Recent papers by Anna M. Michalak include:

  • Increasing sensitivity of dryland vegetation greenness to precipitation due to rising atmospheric CO2, 2022, Nature Communications
  • Climate change exacerbates the environmental impacts of agriculture, 2024, Science
  • The frontiers of water and sanitation, 2023, Nature Water
  • Geographic redistribution of microcystin hotspots in response to climate warming, 2023, Nature Water
  • The impact of improved satellite retrievals on estimates of biospheric carbon balance, 2020, Atmospheric chemistry and physics

Frequent coauthors in their research include Julian Merder, Wu Sun, Joshua B. Fisher, Gang Zhao, and Yuanyuan Fang.

Anna M. Michalak regularly publishes in venues such as Nature Water, Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences, Geophysical Research Letters, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Best Publications

  • Record-setting algal bloom in Lake Erie caused by agricultural and meteorological trends consistent with expected future conditions

    Anna M Michalak;Eric J Anderson;Dimitry Beletsky;Steven Boland

  • Widespread global increase in intense lake phytoplankton blooms since the 1980s

    Jeff C. Ho;Jeff C. Ho;Anna M. Michalak;Nima Pahlevan

  • Eutrophication will increase during the 21st century as a result of precipitation changes.

    E. Sinha;E. Sinha;A. M. Michalak;A. M. Michalak;V. Balaji

  • Global patterns of drought recovery

    Christopher R. Schwalm;Christopher R. Schwalm;William R. L. Anderegg;Anna M. Michalak;Joshua B. Fisher

  • Assessing and addressing the re-eutrophication of Lake Erie: Central basin hypoxia

    Donald Scavia;J. David Allan;Kristin K. Arend;Steven Bartell

  • Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States

    Scot M. Miller;Steven C. Wofsy;Anna M. Michalak;Eric A. Kort

  • The terrestrial biosphere as a net source of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere

    Hanqin Tian;Chaoqun Lu;Chaoqun Lu;Philippe Ciais;Anna M. Michalak

  • Precision Requirements for Space-based XCO2 Data

    C. E. Miller;D. Crisp;P. L. DeCola;S. C. Olsen

  • Study role of climate change in extreme threats to water quality

    Anna M. Michalak

  • Global solutions to regional problems: Collecting global expertise to address the problem of harmful cyanobacterial blooms. A Lake Erie case study.

    George S. Bullerjahn;Robert M. McKay;Timothy W. Davis;David B. Baker

  • Increasing sensitivity of dryland vegetation greenness to precipitation due to rising atmospheric CO2

    Unknown

  • Global patterns and controls of soil organic carbon dynamics as simulated by multiple terrestrial biosphere models: Current status and future directions.

    Hanqin Tian;Chaoqun Lu;Jia Yang;Kamaljit Banger

  • Impact of large‐scale climate extremes on biospheric carbon fluxes: An intercomparison based on MsTMIP data

    Jakob Zscheischler;Jakob Zscheischler;Anna M. Michalak;Christopher Schwalm;Miguel D. Mahecha

  • Enhanced peak growth of global vegetation and its key mechanisms.

    Kun Huang;Jianyang Xia;Yingping Wang;Yingping Wang;Anders Ahlström;Anders Ahlström

  • North American Carbon Program (NACP) regional interim synthesis: Terrestrial biospheric model intercomparison

    D. N. Huntzinger;W. M. Post;Y. Wei;A. M. Michalak

  • The North American Carbon Program Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project – Part 1: Overview and experimental design

    D. N. Huntzinger;C. Schwalm;A. M. Michalak;K. Schaefer

  • Uncertainty in the response of terrestrial carbon sink to environmental drivers undermines carbon-climate feedback predictions.

    D. N. Huntzinger;A. M. Michalak;C. Schwalm;C. Schwalm;P. Ciais

  • The North American Carbon Program Multi-scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project – Part 2: Environmental driver data

    Y. Wei;S. Liu;D. N. Huntzinger;A. M. Michalak

  • A geostatistical approach to surface flux estimation of atmospheric trace gases

    Anna M. Michalak;Anna M. Michalak;Lori Bruhwiler;Pieter P. Tans

  • China's coal mine methane regulations have not curbed growing emissions.

    Scot M. Miller;Scot M. Miller;Anna M. Michalak;Robert G. Detmers;Otto P. Hasekamp

  • Estimation of historical groundwater contaminant distribution using the adjoint state method applied to geostatistical inverse modeling

    Anna M. Michalak;Anna M. Michalak;Peter K. Kitanidis

  • Inverse modeling estimates of the global nitrous oxide surface flux from 1998-2001

    A. I. Hirsch;A. I. Hirsch;A. M. Michalak;L. M. Bruhwiler;Wouter Peters;Wouter Peters

Frequent Co-Authors

Christopher R. Schwalm
Christopher R. Schwalm Woodwell Climate Research Center
Deborah N. Huntzinger
Deborah N. Huntzinger Northern Arizona University
Kevin Schaefer
Kevin Schaefer Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Joshua B. Fisher
Joshua B. Fisher Chapman University
Atul K. Jain
Atul K. Jain University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Robert B. Cook
Robert B. Cook Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Arlyn E. Andrews
Arlyn E. Andrews National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Colm Sweeney
Colm Sweeney National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Hanqin Tian
Hanqin Tian Auburn University
Xiaoying Shi
Xiaoying Shi Oak Ridge National Laboratory

If you think any of the details on this page are incorrect, let us know.

Report an issue

We appreciate your kind effort to assist us to improve this page, it would be helpful providing us with as much detail as possible in the text box below:

Related Online Degrees & Career Pathways

For students interested in Environmental Sciences, exploring related online degrees can open diverse career opportunities. Programs such as the cheapest dsw program offer pathways into social work, focusing on community and environmental justice—an area closely linked to environmental advocacy.

Those seeking flexible options might consider the cheapest online general studies degree programs. These degrees provide a broad educational foundation, allowing students to tailor their studies toward environmental topics without committing to a specific major upfront.

For learners balancing commitments or returning to school, identifying the easiest bachelor degree options can help ease the transition into higher education while building essential skills applicable to environmental careers.

Those aiming for specialized roles in earth sciences should explore geologist degree online programs. These provide targeted training in geology and geoscience, preparing students for careers in environmental consulting, resource management, and more.

Best Scientists Citing Anna M. Michalak

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles