World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Plant Science and Agronomy 75 530 489 59 54 147 23881

Brendan Choat publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Brendan Choat between 2003 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Brendan Choat published across 23 years, from 2003 to 2025, averaging 7.3 papers a year. Output peaked at 16 publications in 2022. 15 of the 169 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2003 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 16. Peak 16 publications in 2022. 2003: 1 publication 2004: 2 publications 2005: 2 publications 2006: 3 publications 2007: 6 publications 2008: 1 publication 2009: 4 publications 2010: 4 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 4 publications 2013: 7 publications 2014: 6 publications 2015: 8 publications 2016: 13 publications 2017: 11 publications 2018: 13 publications 2019: 12 publications 2020: 14 publications 2021: 11 publications 2022: 16 publications 2023: 12 publications 2024: 6 publications 2025: 9 publications
2003 2025

169 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Brendan Choat: publications per year, 2003 to 2025
Year Publications
2003 1
2004 2
2005 2
2006 3
2007 6
2008 1
2009 4
2010 4
2011 4
2012 4
2013 7
2014 6
2015 8
2016 13
2017 11
2018 13
2019 12
2020 14
2021 11
2022 16
2023 12
2024 6
2025 9
Total 169
Download as CSV

Brendan Choat publication distribution in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Brendan Choat sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150 200 250
Bar chart with 88 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 36–40 to 467+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 255. Most scientists, 255, have 111–115 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 467 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 146–150 publications, is where this scientist sits. 36–40 publications: 2 scientists 41–45 publications: 7 scientists 46–50 publications: 40 scientists 51–55 publications: 58 scientists 56–60 publications: 60 scientists 61–65 publications: 107 scientists 66–70 publications: 130 scientists 71–75 publications: 153 scientists 76–80 publications: 191 scientists 81–85 publications: 199 scientists 86–90 publications: 206 scientists 91–95 publications: 218 scientists 96–100 publications: 226 scientists 101–105 publications: 227 scientists 106–110 publications: 247 scientists 111–115 publications: 255 scientists 116–120 publications: 253 scientists 121–125 publications: 233 scientists 126–130 publications: 219 scientists 131–135 publications: 201 scientists 136–140 publications: 194 scientists 141–145 publications: 176 scientists 146–150 publications: 157 scientists 151–155 publications: 147 scientists 156–160 publications: 151 scientists 161–165 publications: 159 scientists 166–170 publications: 137 scientists 171–175 publications: 128 scientists 176–180 publications: 126 scientists 181–185 publications: 98 scientists 186–190 publications: 114 scientists 191–195 publications: 100 scientists 196–200 publications: 90 scientists 201–205 publications: 71 scientists 206–210 publications: 98 scientists 211–215 publications: 70 scientists 216–220 publications: 86 scientists 221–225 publications: 61 scientists 226–230 publications: 58 scientists 231–235 publications: 53 scientists 236–240 publications: 64 scientists 241–245 publications: 39 scientists 246–250 publications: 46 scientists 251–255 publications: 51 scientists 256–260 publications: 36 scientists 261–265 publications: 44 scientists 266–270 publications: 35 scientists 271–275 publications: 30 scientists 276–280 publications: 33 scientists 281–285 publications: 35 scientists 286–290 publications: 36 scientists 291–295 publications: 26 scientists 296–300 publications: 26 scientists 301–305 publications: 31 scientists 306–310 publications: 30 scientists 311–315 publications: 21 scientists 316–320 publications: 29 scientists 321–325 publications: 14 scientists 326–330 publications: 15 scientists 331–335 publications: 15 scientists 336–340 publications: 17 scientists 341–345 publications: 15 scientists 346–350 publications: 12 scientists 351–355 publications: 17 scientists 356–360 publications: 18 scientists 361–365 publications: 12 scientists 366–370 publications: 11 scientists 371–375 publications: 6 scientists 376–380 publications: 6 scientists 381–385 publications: 11 scientists 386–390 publications: 9 scientists 391–395 publications: 10 scientists 396–400 publications: 8 scientists 401–405 publications: 4 scientists 406–410 publications: 9 scientists 411–415 publications: 11 scientists 416–420 publications: 4 scientists 421–425 publications: 7 scientists 426–430 publications: 4 scientists 431–435 publications: 3 scientists 436–440 publications: 5 scientists 441–445 publications: 8 scientists 446–450 publications: 6 scientists 451–455 publications: 7 scientists 456–460 publications: 5 scientists 461–465 publications: 6 scientists 466 publications: 2 scientists 467+ publications: 99 scientists
36–40 publications 467+

This scientist: 147 publications — 57th percentile

57% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 467 publications or more.

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 6,494 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
36–40 2
41–45 7
46–50 40
51–55 58
56–60 60
61–65 107
66–70 130
71–75 153
76–80 191
81–85 199
86–90 206
91–95 218
96–100 226
101–105 227
106–110 247
111–115 255
116–120 253
121–125 233
126–130 219
131–135 201
136–140 194
141–145 176
146–150 157 147
151–155 147
156–160 151
161–165 159
166–170 137
171–175 128
176–180 126
181–185 98
186–190 114
191–195 100
196–200 90
201–205 71
206–210 98
211–215 70
216–220 86
221–225 61
226–230 58
231–235 53
236–240 64
241–245 39
246–250 46
251–255 51
256–260 36
261–265 44
266–270 35
271–275 30
276–280 33
281–285 35
286–290 36
291–295 26
296–300 26
301–305 31
306–310 30
311–315 21
316–320 29
321–325 14
326–330 15
331–335 15
336–340 17
341–345 15
346–350 12
351–355 17
356–360 18
361–365 12
366–370 11
371–375 6
376–380 6
381–385 11
386–390 9
391–395 10
396–400 8
401–405 4
406–410 9
411–415 11
416–420 4
421–425 7
426–430 4
431–435 3
436–440 5
441–445 8
446–450 6
451–455 7
456–460 5
461–465 6
466 2
467+ 99
Download as CSV

Brendan Choat D-index placement in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Brendan Choat sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150 200 250
Bar chart with 80 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 109+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 288. Most scientists, 288, have 34 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 109 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 75 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 30 D-Index: 200 scientists 31 D-Index: 236 scientists 32 D-Index: 253 scientists 33 D-Index: 283 scientists 34 D-Index: 288 scientists 35 D-Index: 240 scientists 36 D-Index: 246 scientists 37 D-Index: 243 scientists 38 D-Index: 247 scientists 39 D-Index: 229 scientists 40 D-Index: 232 scientists 41 D-Index: 230 scientists 42 D-Index: 228 scientists 43 D-Index: 219 scientists 44 D-Index: 193 scientists 45 D-Index: 164 scientists 46 D-Index: 158 scientists 47 D-Index: 143 scientists 48 D-Index: 131 scientists 49 D-Index: 127 scientists 50 D-Index: 122 scientists 51 D-Index: 122 scientists 52 D-Index: 110 scientists 53 D-Index: 102 scientists 54 D-Index: 98 scientists 55 D-Index: 79 scientists 56 D-Index: 85 scientists 57 D-Index: 88 scientists 58 D-Index: 91 scientists 59 D-Index: 62 scientists 60 D-Index: 61 scientists 61 D-Index: 59 scientists 62 D-Index: 54 scientists 63 D-Index: 61 scientists 64 D-Index: 59 scientists 65 D-Index: 58 scientists 66 D-Index: 41 scientists 67 D-Index: 49 scientists 68 D-Index: 39 scientists 69 D-Index: 32 scientists 70 D-Index: 40 scientists 71 D-Index: 47 scientists 72 D-Index: 38 scientists 73 D-Index: 28 scientists 74 D-Index: 29 scientists 75 D-Index: 28 scientists 76 D-Index: 22 scientists 77 D-Index: 21 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 26 scientists 80 D-Index: 19 scientists 81 D-Index: 16 scientists 82 D-Index: 12 scientists 83 D-Index: 16 scientists 84 D-Index: 14 scientists 85 D-Index: 11 scientists 86 D-Index: 17 scientists 87 D-Index: 13 scientists 88 D-Index: 10 scientists 89 D-Index: 12 scientists 90 D-Index: 18 scientists 91 D-Index: 16 scientists 92 D-Index: 16 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 12 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 9 scientists 97 D-Index: 9 scientists 98 D-Index: 11 scientists 99 D-Index: 12 scientists 100 D-Index: 5 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 4 scientists 103 D-Index: 11 scientists 104 D-Index: 5 scientists 105 D-Index: 9 scientists 106 D-Index: 7 scientists 107 D-Index: 4 scientists 108 D-Index: 8 scientists 109+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 109+

This scientist: 75 D-Index — 92nd percentile

92% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 109 D-Index or more.

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 6,494 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 200
31 236
32 253
33 283
34 288
35 240
36 246
37 243
38 247
39 229
40 232
41 230
42 228
43 219
44 193
45 164
46 158
47 143
48 131
49 127
50 122
51 122
52 110
53 102
54 98
55 79
56 85
57 88
58 91
59 62
60 61
61 59
62 54
63 61
64 59
65 58
66 41
67 49
68 39
69 32
70 40
71 47
72 38
73 28
74 29
75 28 75
76 22
77 21
78 25
79 26
80 19
81 16
82 12
83 16
84 14
85 11
86 17
87 13
88 10
89 12
90 18
91 16
92 16
93 17
94 12
95 8
96 9
97 9
98 11
99 12
100 5
101 8
102 4
103 11
104 5
105 9
106 7
107 4
108 8
109+ 99
Download as CSV

Overview

What is he best known for?

The fields of study he is best known for:

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Ecosystem

Brendan Choat spends much of his time researching Xylem, Botany, Hydraulic conductivity, Ecology and Water transport. His Xylem research incorporates themes from Porosity and Woody plant. As a part of the same scientific family, Brendan Choat mostly works in the field of Botany, focusing on Biophysics and, on occasion, Vitis vinifera and Hardwood.

His Hydraulic conductivity research focuses on Transpiration and how it connects with Composite material. He brings together Water transport and Agronomy to produce work in his papers. The various areas that Brendan Choat examines in his Climate change study include Biodiversity and Biome.

His most cited work include:

  • Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought (1256 citations)
  • Structure and function of bordered pits: new discoveries and impacts on whole-plant hydraulic function (366 citations)
  • Triggers of tree mortality under drought (316 citations)

What are the main themes of his work throughout his whole career to date?

His primary scientific interests are in Xylem, Botany, Hydraulic conductivity, Water transport and Ecology. His research integrates issues of Soil science, Woody plant and Transpiration in his study of Xylem. His Transpiration research is multidisciplinary, incorporating perspectives in Canopy and Stomatal conductance.

His work on Tracheid, Evergreen, Vitis vinifera and Rainforest as part of general Botany research is often related to X-ray microtomography, thus linking different fields of science. Brendan Choat works mostly in the field of Hydraulic conductivity, limiting it down to topics relating to Intraspecific competition and, in certain cases, Interspecific competition, as a part of the same area of interest. His work is dedicated to discovering how Biome, Arid are connected with Adaptation and other disciplines.

He most often published in these fields:

  • Xylem (60.80%)
  • Botany (48.80%)
  • Hydraulic conductivity (24.80%)

What were the highlights of his more recent work (between 2018-2021)?

  • Xylem (60.80%)
  • Agronomy (17.60%)
  • Drought tolerance (8.80%)

In recent papers he was focusing on the following fields of study:

Xylem, Agronomy, Drought tolerance, Ecology and Tree species are his primary areas of study. He is investigating Horticulture and Botany as part of his examination of Xylem. His work carried out in the field of Horticulture brings together such families of science as Irrigation and Transpiration.

The concepts of his Botany study are interwoven with issues in Global biodiversity and Acacia aneura. His Agronomy research incorporates elements of Eucalyptus and Ecosystem respiration. Brendan Choat interconnects Hydraulic conductivity, Water use, Intraspecific competition and Hakea leucoptera in the investigation of issues within Drought tolerance.

Between 2018 and 2021, his most popular works were:

  • TRY plant trait database : Enhanced coverage and open access (179 citations)
  • Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought (61 citations)
  • Drought response strategies and hydraulic traits contribute to mechanistic understanding of plant dry-down to hydraulic failure. (26 citations)

In his most recent research, the most cited papers focused on:

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Ecosystem

His scientific interests lie mostly in Agronomy, Drought tolerance, Eucalyptus, Tree species and Climate change. His Biomass study, which is part of a larger body of work in Agronomy, is frequently linked to Critical level and Principal mechanism, bridging the gap between disciplines. His Eucalyptus study combines topics from a wide range of disciplines, such as Desiccation, Woody plant, Xylem and Resistance.

Xylem is closely attributed to Drought stress in his work. His Tree species study which covers Nutrient that intersects with Water stress and Biodiversity. His study looks at the relationship between Climate change and topics such as Eddy covariance, which overlap with Vegetation.

Best Publications

  • Global convergence in the vulnerability of forests to drought

    Brendan Choat;Steven Jansen;Tim J. Brodribb;Hervé Cochard;Hervé Cochard

  • TRY plant trait database : Enhanced coverage and open access

    Jens Kattge;Gerhard Bönisch;Sandra Díaz;Sandra Lavorel

  • Triggers of tree mortality under drought

    Brendan Choat;Timothy J. Brodribb;Craig R. Brodersen;Remko A. Duursma

  • Meta-analysis reveals that hydraulic traits explain cross-species patterns of drought-induced tree mortality across the globe

    William R. L. Anderegg;Tamir Klein;Megan Bartlett;Lawren Sack

  • Weak tradeoff between xylem safety and xylem-specific hydraulic efficiency across the world's woody plant species

    Sean M. Gleason;Sean M. Gleason;Mark Westoby;Steven Jansen;Brendan Choat

  • Hanging by a thread? Forests and drought

    Timothy J. Brodribb;Jennifer Powers;Hervé Cochard;Brendan Choat

  • Structure and function of bordered pits: new discoveries and impacts on whole-plant hydraulic function

    Brendan Choat;Alexander R. Cobb;Steven Jansen

  • Mechanisms of woody-plant mortality under rising drought, CO2 and vapour pressure deficit

    Unknown

  • Testing hypotheses that link wood anatomy to cavitation resistance and hydraulic conductivity in the genus Acer

    Frederic Lens;Frederic Lens;John S. Sperry;Mairgareth A. Christman;Brendan Choat

  • The correlations and sequence of plant stomatal, hydraulic, and wilting responses to drought

    Megan K. Bartlett;Tamir Klein;Steven Jansen;Brendan Choat

  • Methods for measuring plant vulnerability to cavitation: a critical review

    Hervé Cochard;Eric Badel;Stéphane Herbette;Sylvain Delzon

  • The Dynamics of Embolism Repair in Xylem: In Vivo Visualizations Using High-Resolution Computed Tomography

    Craig R. Brodersen;Andrew J. McElrone;Brendan Choat;Mark A. Matthews

  • Morphological variation of intervessel pit membranes and implications to xylem function in angiosperms.

    Steven Jansen;Brendan Choat;Annelies Pletsers

  • Trees tolerate an extreme heatwave via sustained transpirational cooling and increased leaf thermal tolerance

    John E Drake;John E Drake;Mark G Tjoelker;Angelica Varhammar;Belinda E Medlyn

  • Pit membrane porosity and water stress-induced cavitation in four co-existing dry rainforest tree species.

    Brendan Choat;Marilyn Ball;Jon G Luly;Joseph A M Holtum

  • The global spectrum of plant form and function: enhanced species-level trait dataset

    Unknown

  • Measurement of vulnerability to water stress‐induced cavitation in grapevine: a comparison of four techniques applied to a long‐vesseled species

    Brendan Choat;William M Drayton;Craig R Brodersen;Mark A Matthews

  • Linking hydraulic traits to tropical forest function in a size-structured and trait-driven model (TFS v.1-Hydro)

    Bradley O. Christoffersen;Bradley O. Christoffersen;Manuel Gloor;Sophie Fauset;Nikolaos M. Fyllas

  • The role of freezing in setting the latitudinal limits of mangrove forests.

    S A Stuart;S A Stuart;B Choat;Katherine Martin;Noel Michele Holbrook

  • Hydraulic architecture of deciduous and evergreen dry rainforest tree species from north-eastern Australia

    Brendan Choat;Brendan Choat;Marilyn C. Ball;Jon G. Luly;Joseph A. M. Holtum

  • In Vivo Visualizations of Drought-Induced Embolism Spread in Vitis vinifera

    Craig Robert Brodersen;Andrew Joseph McElrone;Brendan Choat;Eric Franklin Lee

  • fitplc - an R package to fit hydraulic vulnerability curves

    Remko A Duursma;Brendan Choat

  • Changes in pit membrane porosity due to deflection and stretching: the role of vestured pits.

    Brendan Choat;Steven Jansen;Maciej A. Zwieniecki;Erik Smets

  • The spatial pattern of air seeding thresholds in mature sugar maple trees

    Brendan Choat;Eleanor C. Lahr;Peter J. Melcher;Maciej A. Zwieniecki

Frequent Co-Authors

Steven Jansen
Steven Jansen University of Ulm
David T. Tissue
David T. Tissue Western Sydney University
Hervé Cochard
Hervé Cochard INRAE : Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement
Timothy J. Brodribb
Timothy J. Brodribb University of Tasmania
Belinda E. Medlyn
Belinda E. Medlyn Western Sydney University
Remko A. Duursma
Remko A. Duursma Western Sydney University
Craig R. Brodersen
Craig R. Brodersen Yale University
Andrew J. McElrone
Andrew J. McElrone United States Department of Agriculture
Sylvain Delzon
Sylvain Delzon University of Bordeaux
Frederic Lens
Frederic Lens Naturalis Biodiversity Center

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:

Best Scientists Citing Brendan Choat

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles