World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
56
Citations
12481
World Ranking
3618
National Ranking
1380

John S. King 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 John S. King 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: 177 publications — 55th percentile

55% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

John S. King 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 John S. King 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: 56 D-Index — 63rd percentile

63% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

John S. King is affiliated with North Carolina State University in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on environmental science, with a concentration on topics related to global and planetary change, ecology, nature and landscape conservation, plant science, and soil science.

The scientist has contributed extensively to the study of plant water relations and carbon dynamics, peatlands and wetlands ecology, atmospheric and environmental gas dynamics, coastal wetland ecosystem dynamics, bioenergy crop production and management, hydrology and watershed management studies, and forest ecology and management.

Among their recent papers are:

  • FLUXNET-CH 4: a global, multi-ecosystem dataset and analysis of methane seasonality from freshwater wetlands (2021, Earth system science data)
  • Upscaling Wetland Methane Emissions From the FLUXNET-CH4 Eddy Covariance Network (UpCH4 v1.0): Model Development, Network Assessment, and Budget Comparison (2023, AGU Advances)
  • Tidal Wetland Gross Primary Production Across the Continental United States, 2000-2019 (2020, Global Biogeochemical Cycles)
  • Long-term carbon flux and balance in managed and natural coastal forested wetlands of the Southeastern USA (2020, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology)
  • Effects of land-use change and drought on decadal evapotranspiration and water balance of natural and managed forested wetlands along the southeastern US lower coastal plain (2021, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology)

John S. King frequently collaborates with several coauthors, including Asko Noormets, Maricar Aguilos, Steven G. McNulty, Bhaskar Mitra, and Jean-Christophe Domec.

The scientist's work is often published in venues such as Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Forests, Tree Physiology, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, and Environmental Research Letters.

Best Publications

  • Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved across a broad range of productivity.

    Richard J. Norby;Evan H. DeLucia;Birgit Gielen;Carlo Calfapietra

  • Responses of tree fine roots to temperature

    Kurt S. Pregitzer;John S. King;Andrew J. Burton;Shannon E. Brown

  • Elevated atmospheric CO2, fine roots and the response of soil microorganisms: a review and hypothesis

    Donald R. Zak;Kurt S. Pregitzer;John S. King;William E. Holmes

  • Leaf Area and Above- and Belowground Growth Responses of Loblolly Pine to Nutrient and Water Additions

    Timothy J. Albaugh;H. Lee Allen;Phillip M. Dougherty;Lance W. Kress

  • Simple additive effects are rare: a quantitative review of plant biomass and soil process responses to combined manipulations of CO2 and temperature.

    Wouter I. J. Dieleman;Wouter I. J. Dieleman;Sara Vicca;Feike A. Dijkstra;Frank Hagedorn

  • Below‐ground carbon input to soil is controlled by nutrient availability and fine root dynamics in loblolly pine

    John S. King;Timothy J. Albaugh;H. Lee Allen;Marilyn Buford

  • Tropospheric O3 moderates responses of temperate hardwood forests to elevated CO2: a synthesis of molecular to ecosystem results from the Aspen FACE project

    D. F. Karnosky;D. R. Zak;K. S. Pregitzer;K. S. Pregitzer;C. S. Awmack

  • Effects of forest management on productivity and carbon sequestration: A review and hypothesis

    A. Noormets;D. Epron;J.C. Domec;J.C. Domec;S.G. McNulty

  • Fine-root biomass and fluxes of soil carbon in young stands of paper birch and trembling aspen as affected by elevated atmospheric CO 2 and tropospheric O 3

    J. S. King;K. S. Pregitzer;K. S. Pregitzer;D. R. Zak;J. Sober

  • Energy and water balance of two contrasting loblolly pine plantations on the lower coastal plain of North Carolina, USA

    G. Sun;A. Noormets;M.J. Gavazzi;S.G. McNulty

  • Tropospheric O3 compromises net primary production in young stands of trembling aspen, paper birch and sugar maple in response to elevated atmospheric CO2

    John S. King;John S. King;Mark E. Kubiske;Kurt S. Pregitzer;George R. Hendrey

  • Hydraulic redistribution of soil water by roots affects whole-stand evapotranspiration and net ecosystem carbon exchange.

    Jean-Christophe Domec;John S. King;Asko Noormets;Emrys Treasure

  • A multiyear synthesis of soil respiration responses to elevated atmospheric CO2 from four forest FACE experiments

    John S. King;Paul J. Hanson;Emily Bernhardt;Paolo DeAngelis

  • Soil respiration, root biomass, and root turnover following long‐term exposure of northern forests to elevated atmospheric CO2 and tropospheric O3

    Kurt S. Pregitzer;Andrew J. Burton;John S. King;Donald R. Zak

  • Decoupling the influence of leaf and root hydraulic conductances on stomatal conductance and its sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit as soil dries in a drained loblolly pine plantation

    Jean-Christophe Domec;Asko Noormets;John S. King;Ge Sun

  • Response of carbon fluxes to drought in a coastal plain loblolly pine forest

    Asko Noormets;Michael J. Gavazzi;Steve G. McNulty;Jean-Christophe Domec

  • Stand-level allometry in Pinus taeda as affected by irrigation and fertilization.

    J. S. King;T. J. Albaugh;H. L. Allen;L. W. Kress

  • FLUXNET-CH4: a global, multi-ecosystem dataset and analysis of methane seasonality from freshwater wetlands

    Kyle B. Delwiche;Sara Helen Knox;Avni Malhotra;Etienne Fluet-Chouinard

  • Reduction of soil carbon formation by tropospheric ozone under increased carbon dioxide levels

    Wendy M. Loya;Kurt S. Pregitzer;Noah J. Karberg;John S. King

  • Effects of Soil Temperature on Nutrient Uptake

    K.S. Pregitzer;J.S. King

  • Clonal variation in above- and below-ground growth responses of Populus tremuloides Michaux: Influence of soil warming and nutrient availability

    John S. King;Kurt S. Pregitzer;Donald R. Zak

  • Erratum: Arctic hydrology during global warming at the Palaeocene/Eocene thermal maximum (Nature (2006) 442 (671-675))

    Mark Pagani;Nikolai Pedentchouk;Matthew Huber;Appy Sluijs

  • Effects of Forest Management on Productivity and Carbon Sequestration:A Review and Hypothesis

    A. Noormets;D. Epron;J. C. Domec;Y. Nouvellon

Frequent Co-Authors

Jean-Christophe Domec
Jean-Christophe Domec Bordeaux Sciences Agro
Asko Noormets
Asko Noormets Texas A&M University
Ge Sun
Ge Sun US Forest Service
Kurt S. Pregitzer
Kurt S. Pregitzer University of Idaho
Donald R. Zak
Donald R. Zak University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Mark E. Kubiske
Mark E. Kubiske US Forest Service
Christian P. Giardina
Christian P. Giardina US Forest Service
David F. Karnosky
David F. Karnosky Michigan Technological University
Reinhart Ceulemans
Reinhart Ceulemans University of Antwerp
Steven G. McNulty
Steven G. McNulty US Forest Service

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 those interested in Environmental Sciences, pursuing related online degrees can open diverse career opportunities. For instance, many students explore online geology programs to gain a solid understanding of Earth processes, which is essential for roles in environmental consulting or natural resource management.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) skills are increasingly valuable in analyzing environmental data. Completing one of the top gis degree programs online equips students with tools to visualize and interpret spatial information, useful in urban planning, conservation, and disaster management careers.

For those aiming to impact public environmental policy and administration, a fast-tracked 1 year mpa online program offers an accelerated path to leadership roles in government and nonprofit sectors focused on sustainability and environmental regulation.

Understanding human behavior and social dynamics is also critical. Pursuing one of the best online bachelor degree in sociology programs provides valuable insights into community engagement and social impact, complementing environmental initiatives.

Best Scientists Citing John S. King

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles