World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
54
Citations
25361
World Ranking
3934
National Ranking
1499

Daniel J. Hayes 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 Daniel J. Hayes 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: 220 publications — 70th percentile

70% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Daniel J. Hayes 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 Daniel J. Hayes 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: 54 D-Index — 59th percentile

59% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Daniel J. Hayes is affiliated with the University of Maine in the United States and has contributed extensively to the fields of Environmental Science and Earth and Planetary Sciences. Their research spans a range of subfields including Global and Planetary Change, Atmospheric Science, Oceanography, Environmental Engineering, and Economics and Econometrics.

Their recent scholarly output includes notable papers that reflect an emphasis on climate dynamics, ecosystem interactions, and soil carbon. Key publications feature:

  • Soil moisture and hydrology projections of the permafrost region - a model intercomparison (2020), published in The Cryosphere
  • Soil Organic Carbon Across Mexico and the Conterminous United States (1991-2010) (2020), published in Global Biogeochemical Cycles
  • Integrating terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems to constrain estimates of land-atmosphere carbon exchange (2023), published in Nature Communications
  • A Multi-Sensor Unoccupied Aerial System Improves Characterization of Vegetation Composition and Canopy Properties in the Arctic Tundra (2020), published in Remote Sensing
  • Evaluation of simulated soil carbon dynamics in Arctic-Boreal ecosystems (2020), published in Environmental Research Letters

The scientist collaborates frequently with a group of co-authors, including Xinyuan Wei, Dedi Yang, Shawn Serbin, David Butman, and Wouter Hantson.

Their research is published primarily in a core set of venues, which include:

  • Environmental Research Letters
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)
  • Remote Sensing
  • Global Biogeochemical Cycles
  • Nature Communications

Daniel J. Hayes's work covers several interrelated topics that address environmental and climatic processes. These main topics are:

  • Climate change and permafrost
  • Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Cryospheric studies and observations
  • Marine and coastal ecosystems
  • Forest Management and Policy
  • Geology and Paleoclimatology Research
  • Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics

The research conducted by Hayes contributes to enhanced understanding of complex natural systems, combining terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem analyses with advanced modeling techniques. Their involvement in areas such as permafrost hydrology and carbon dynamics reflects ongoing engagement with pressing environmental science challenges that pertain to global climate and ecosystems.

Best Publications

  • A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests

    Yude Pan;Richard A. Birdsey;Jingyun Fang;Jingyun Fang;Richard Houghton

  • Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback

    E. A. G. Schuur;A. D. McGuire;C. Schädel;C. Schädel;Guido Grosse

  • Sensitivity of the carbon cycle in the Arctic to climate change

    A. David McGuire;Leif G. Anderson;Torben R. Christensen;Scott Dallimore

  • Global patterns of drought recovery

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

  • Circumpolar distribution and carbon storage of thermokarst landscapes

    D. Olefeldt;S. Goswami;Guido Grosse;D. Hayes

  • Dependence of the evolution of carbon dynamics in the northern permafrost region on the trajectory of climate change.

    A. David McGuire;David M. Lawrence;Charles Koven;Joy S. Clein

  • An assessment of the carbon balance of Arctic tundra: comparisons among observations, process models, and atmospheric inversions

    A. D. McGuire;Torben Christensen;D. Hayes;Arnaud Heroult

  • Expert assessment of vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change

    E. A. G. Schuur;B. W. Abbott;W. B. Bowden;V. Brovkin

  • Comparison of change-detection techniques for monitoring tropical forest clearing and vegetation regrowth in a time series

    Daniel J. Hayes;Steven A. Sader

  • 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

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

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

  • Is the northern high-latitude land-based CO2 sink weakening?

    D. J. Hayes;A. D. McGuire;D. W. Kicklighter;Kevin Gurney;Kevin Gurney

  • 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

  • Automated Detection of Cloud and Cloud Shadow in Single-Date Landsat Imagery Using Neural Networks and Spatial Post-Processing

    M. Joseph Hughes;Daniel J. Hayes

  • 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

  • Recent Arctic tundra fire initiates widespread thermokarst development

    Benjamin M. Jones;Guido Grosse;Christopher D. Arp;Eric K. Miller

  • A simplified, data-constrained approach to estimate the permafrost carbon-climate feedback

    C.D Koven;E.A.G. Schuur;C Schädel;T. J Bohn

  • Layer stacking: A novel algorithm for individual forest tree segmentation from LiDAR point clouds

    Elias Ayrey;Shawn Fraver;John A. Kershaw;Laura S. Kenefic

  • North American terrestrial CO2 uptake largely offset by CH4 and N2O emissions: toward a full accounting of the greenhouse gas budget.

    Hanqin Tian;Guangsheng Chen;Chaoqun Lu;Xiaofeng Xu

  • Forest change monitoring of a remote biosphere reserve

    S. A. Sader;D. J. Hayes;J. A. Hepinstall;M. Coan

  • Soil moisture and hydrology projections of the permafrost region – a model intercomparison

    Christian G. Andresen;Christian G. Andresen;David M. Lawrence;Cathy J. Wilson;A. David McGuire

  • An assessment of the carbon balance of Arctic tundra: Comparisons among observations, process models, and atmospheric inversions

    A. D. McGuire;T. R. Christensen;D. J. Hayes;A. Heroult

Frequent Co-Authors

Deborah N. Huntzinger
Deborah N. Huntzinger Northern Arizona University
Kevin Schaefer
Kevin Schaefer Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences
Christopher R. Schwalm
Christopher R. Schwalm Woodwell Climate Research Center
Joshua B. Fisher
Joshua B. Fisher Chapman University
Shushi Peng
Shushi Peng Peking University
A. D. McGuire
A. D. McGuire University of Alaska Fairbanks
Atul K. Jain
Atul K. Jain University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
A. David McGuire
A. David McGuire University of Alaska Fairbanks
Anna M. Michalak
Anna M. Michalak Stanford University
Ning Zeng
Ning Zeng University of Maryland, College Park

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 pursuing Environmental Sciences, complementary online degrees can broaden both knowledge and career prospects. A gis degree is particularly valuable, as Geographic Information Systems technology plays a crucial role in environmental data analysis and resource management.

Leadership and policy-making skills are equally important in addressing environmental challenges. Enrolling in top online mpa programs offers a pathway to careers in public administration and environmental governance, equipping graduates to influence sustainability initiatives.

Understanding social dynamics is also key to effective environmental solutions. Pursuing a bachelors degree in sociology online can provide insights into community behavior and social structures that impact ecological outcomes.

For those interested in advancing into academia or leadership without extensive research commitments, online doctoral programs such as an edd without dissertation offer flexible routes to doctorate-level credentials, ideal for educators and environmental professionals alike.

Best Scientists Citing Daniel J. Hayes

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles