World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
82
Citations
42442
World Ranking
859
National Ranking
52

Julia Pongratz 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 Julia Pongratz 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: 264 publications — 80th percentile

80% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Julia Pongratz 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 Julia Pongratz 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: 82 D-Index — 91st percentile

91% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Julia Pongratz is affiliated with Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München in Germany. Their research primarily focuses on environmental science, with a significant number of publications addressing global and planetary change.

The scientist's work spans several subfields, including:

  • Global and Planetary Change
  • Atmospheric Science
  • Economics and Econometrics
  • Environmental Engineering
  • Mechanical Engineering

The main topics covered in their research include:

  • Atmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
  • Climate variability and models
  • Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
  • Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
  • Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies
  • Environmental Impact and Sustainability

Julia Pongratz has authored and co-authored multiple papers, several of which contribute to the understanding of global carbon budgets published in "Earth system science data". Notable recent publications include:

  • Global Carbon Budget 2020 (2020) - Earth system science data
  • Global Carbon Budget 2022 (2022) - Earth system science data
  • Global Carbon Budget 2021 (2022) - Earth system science data
  • Global Carbon Budget 2023 (2023) - Earth system science data
  • A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018 (2021) - Environmental Research Letters

Frequent co-authors collaborating with Julia Pongratz include:

  • Pierre Friedlingstein
  • Stephen Sitch
  • Philippe Ciais
  • Robbie M. Andrew
  • Glen P. Peters

Publication venues where Julia Pongratz's work frequently appears include:

  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Earth system science data
  • Environmental Research Letters
  • Earth System Dynamics
  • Biogeosciences

Best Publications

  • Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing

    Gunnar Myhre;Drew Shindell;Julia Pongratz

  • Global Carbon Budget 2018

    Corinne Le Quéré;Robbie M. Andrew;Pierre Friedlingstein;Stephen Sitch

  • Global Carbon Budget 2020

    Pierre Friedlingstein;Pierre Friedlingstein;Michael O'Sullivan;Matthew W. Jones;Robbie M. Andrew

  • Global Carbon Budget 2019

    Pierre Friedlingstein;Pierre Friedlingstein;Matthew W. Jones;Michael O'Sullivan;Robbie Andrew

  • Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change

    Richard A. Houghton;J.I. House;J. Pongratz;J. Pongratz;G. R. van der Werf

  • Developments in the MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) and Its Response to Increasing CO2.

    Thorsten Mauritsen;Thorsten Mauritsen;Jürgen Bader;Tobias Becker;Jörg Behrens

  • Global Carbon Budget 2017

    Corinne Le Quere;Robbie M. Andrew;Pierre Friedlingstein;Stephen Sitch

  • Global Carbon Budget 2023

    Unknown

  • A review of trends and drivers of greenhouse gas emissions by sector from 1990 to 2018

    William F. Lamb;Thomas Wiedmann;Julia Pongratz;Robbie Andrew

  • Harmonization of global land use change and management for the period 850–2100 (LUH2) for CMIP6

    George C. Hurtt;Louise Chini;Ritvik Sahajpal;Steve Frolking

  • Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks

    Josep G. Canadell;Pedro M.S. Monteiro;Marcos H. Costa;Leticia Cotrim Da Cunha

  • Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass

    Karl Heinz Erb;Thomas Kastner;Christoph Plutzar;Christoph Plutzar;Anna Liza S. Bais

  • A reconstruction of global agricultural areas and land cover for the last millennium

    Julia Pongratz;C. Reick;T. Raddatz;Martin Claussen;Martin Claussen

  • Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach

    Martin Jung;Christopher Schwalm;Mirco Migliavacca;Sophia Walther

  • Land management and land-cover change have impacts of similar magnitude on surface temperature

    Sebastiaan Luyssaert;Mathilde Jammet;Paul C. Stoy;Stephen Estel

  • Integrating the evidence for a terrestrial carbon sink caused by increasing atmospheric CO2

    Anthony P. Walker;Martin G. De Kauwe;Ana Bastos;Soumaya Belmecheri

  • The drivers and impacts of Amazon forest degradation

    Unknown

  • Carbon-concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

    Vivek K. Arora;Anna Katavouta;Anna Katavouta;Richard G. Williams;Chris D. Jones

  • Global and regional drivers of land-use emissions in 1961–2017

    Chaopeng Hong;Jennifer A. Burney;Julia Pongratz;Julia Pongratz;Julia E. M. S. Nabel

  • Climate forcing reconstructions for use in PMIP simulations of the last millennium (v1.0)

    G. A. Schmidt;Johann H. Jungclaus;C. M. Ammann;Edouard Bard

  • Historical carbon dioxide emissions caused by land-use changes are possibly larger than assumed

    Almut Arneth;Stephen Sitch;Julia Pongratz;B. D. Stocker

  • The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6:rationale and experimental design

    David M. Lawrence;George C. Hurtt;Almut Arneth;Victor Brovkin

  • Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: Synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach. In open review for Biogeosciences. doi 10.5194/bg-2019-368

    Martin Jung;Christopher Schwalm;Mirco Migliavacca;Sophia Walther

Frequent Co-Authors

Christian Reick
Christian Reick Max Planck Society
Julia E. M. S. Nabel
Julia E. M. S. Nabel Max Planck Society
Stephen Sitch
Stephen Sitch University of Exeter
Pierre Friedlingstein
Pierre Friedlingstein University of Exeter
Victor Brovkin
Victor Brovkin Max Planck Society
Martin Claussen
Martin Claussen Universität Hamburg
Thomas Raddatz
Thomas Raddatz Max Planck Society
Almut Arneth
Almut Arneth Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Sönke Zaehle
Sönke Zaehle Max Planck Society
Kees Klein Goldewijk
Kees Klein Goldewijk Utrecht University

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 broaden career opportunities. Many students prioritize affordability, so exploring the online general studies degree affordable options is a great starting point. These programs offer flexibility and cost-effectiveness, which are perfect for balancing studies with other commitments.

Some students may prefer less intensive paths, and understanding the easiest bachelor degree to get can help in selecting degree programs that fit individual learning styles and goals without overwhelming workload.

Environmental Sciences often overlap with fields like geology. Pursuing an online geology degree provides specialized knowledge about earth systems, which is valuable for careers in natural resource management and environmental consulting.

Technology also plays a key role in this sector, especially Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Studying at programs recognized as the best GIS programs can prepare students for data-driven roles in environmental mapping, analysis, and planning, crucial for sustainable development.

Best Scientists Citing Julia Pongratz

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles