World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Craig R. Brodersen

Craig R. Brodersen

D-Index & Metrics

Plant Science and Agronomy

D-Index
54
Citations
9672
World Ranking
1721
National Ranking
454

Craig R. Brodersen 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 Craig R. Brodersen sits on this spectrum.

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 publications 467+

This scientist: 124 publications — 43rd percentile

43% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Craig R. Brodersen 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 Craig R. Brodersen sits on this spectrum.

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: 54 D-Index — 75th percentile

75% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • Triggers of tree mortality under drought

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

  • 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

  • Maintenance of xylem Network Transport Capacity: A Review of Embolism Repair in Vascular Plants.

    Craig R. Brodersen;Andrew J. McElrone

  • 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

  • Outside-Xylem Vulnerability, Not Xylem Embolism, Controls Leaf Hydraulic Decline during Dehydration.

    Christine Scoffoni;Caetano Albuquerque;Craig R. Brodersen;Shatara V. Townes

  • Do changes in light direction affect absorption profiles in leaves

    Craig R. Brodersen;Thomas C. Vogelmann

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

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

  • Direct X-Ray Microtomography Observation Confirms the Induction of Embolism upon Xylem Cutting under Tension

    José M. Torres-Ruiz;Steven Jansen;Brendan Choat;Andrew J. McElrone

  • Functional xylem characteristics associated with drought-induced embolism in angiosperms.

    Unknown

  • Burning questions for a warming and changing world: 15 unknowns in plant abiotic stress

    Unknown

  • Synchrotron X-ray microtomography of xylem embolism in Sequoia sempervirens saplings during cycles of drought and recovery

    Brendan Choat;Craig R. Brodersen;Andrew J. McElrone;Andrew J. McElrone

  • Mechanical Failure of Fine Root Cortical Cells Initiates Plant Hydraulic Decline during Drought

    Italo F. Cuneo;Thorsten Knipfer;Craig R. Brodersen;Andrew J. McElrone

  • Automated analysis of three-dimensional xylem networks using high-resolution computed tomography

    Craig R. Brodersen;Eric F. Lee;Brendan Choat;Steven Jansen

  • The Scaling of Genome Size and Cell Size Limits Maximum Rates of Photosynthesis with Implications for Ecological Strategies

    Adam B. Roddy;Guillaume Théroux-Rancourt;Tito Abbo;Joseph W. Benedetti

  • Functional Status of Xylem Through Time

    Craig R Brodersen;Adam B Roddy;Jay W Wason;Andrew J McElrone;Andrew J McElrone

  • A new paradigm in leaf-level photosynthesis: direct and diffuse lights are not equal.

    Craig R. Brodersen;Thomas C. Vogelmann;William E. Williams;Holly L. Gorton

  • Leaf vein xylem conduit diameter influences susceptibility to embolism and hydraulic decline.

    Christine Scoffoni;Christine Scoffoni;Caetano Albuquerque;Craig R. Brodersen;Shatara V. Townes

  • Do epidermal lens cells facilitate the absorptance of diffuse light

    Craig R. Brodersen;Thomas C. Vogelmann

  • Linking xylem network failure with leaf tissue death

    Timothy J. Brodribb;Craig Brodersen;Marc Carriquí;Vanessa Tonet

  • Grapevine petioles are more sensitive to drought induced embolism than stems: evidence from in vivo MRI and microcomputed tomography observations of hydraulic vulnerability segmentation.

    Uri Hochberg;Uri Hochberg;Caetano Albuquerque;Shimon Rachmilevitch;Herve Cochard

  • Bark water uptake promotes localized hydraulic recovery in coastal redwood crown.

    J. Mason Earles;Or Sperling;Lucas C. R. Silva;Andrew J. McElrone;Andrew J. McElrone

  • In Situ Visualization of the Dynamics in Xylem Embolism Formation and Removal in the Absence of Root Pressure: A Study on Excised Grapevine Stems.

    Thorsten Knipfer;Italo F. Cuneo;Craig R. Brodersen;Andrew J. McElrone

  • Grapevine species from varied native habitats exhibit differences in embolism formation/repair associated with leaf gas exchange and root pressure.

    Thorsten Knipfer;Ashley Eustis;Craig Brodersen;Andrew M. Walker

  • The Parenchyma of Secondary Xylem and Its Critical Role in Tree Defense against Fungal Decay in Relation to the CODIT Model.

    Hugh Robert Morris;Craig Brodersen;Francis W. M. R. Schwarze;Steven Jansen

Frequent Co-Authors

Andrew J. McElrone
Andrew J. McElrone United States Department of Agriculture
Brendan Choat
Brendan Choat Western Sydney University
Daniel M. Johnson
Daniel M. Johnson University of Georgia
Kenneth A. Shackel
Kenneth A. Shackel University of California, Davis
Mark A. Matthews
Mark A. Matthews University of California, Davis
Steven Jansen
Steven Jansen University of Ulm
Thomas N. Buckley
Thomas N. Buckley University of California, Davis
Maciej A. Zwieniecki
Maciej A. Zwieniecki University of California, Davis
Christine Scoffoni
Christine Scoffoni California State University Los Angeles
Lawren Sack
Lawren Sack University of California, Los Angeles

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 Craig R. Brodersen

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles