World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
40
Citations
9829
World Ranking
7923
National Ranking
2818

Lauren E. Hay 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 Lauren E. Hay 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: 134 publications — 32nd percentile

32% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Lauren E. Hay 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 Lauren E. Hay 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: 40 D-Index — 19th percentile

19% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Lauren E. Hay is affiliated with the United States Geological Survey in the United States. Their research focuses primarily on environmental science and earth and planetary sciences, with a significant number of publications in these fields.

The scientist's main subfields of study include water science and technology, global and planetary change, atmospheric science, geology, and environmental engineering. Their work covers topics such as hydrology and watershed management studies, cryospheric studies and observations, flood risk assessment and management, environmental monitoring and data management, arsenic contamination and mitigation, groundwater and isotope geochemistry, and water resources management and optimization.

Frequent coauthors in their research include Ashley E. Van Beusekom, Andrew Bennett, Young-Don Choi, Iman Maghami, and Bart Nijssen, with multiple collaborations recorded with each.

The scientist has published extensively across several venues. The most frequent publication platforms are:

  • HydroShare Resources
  • Environmental Science & Technology
  • Hydrological Processes
  • Journal of Hydrometeorology
  • JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Recent significant papers include:

  • "Assessing the Impact of Drought on Arsenic Exposure from Private Domestic Wells in the Conterminous United States," 2021, Environmental Science & Technology
  • "Runoff sensitivity to snow depletion curve representation within a continental scale hydrologic model," 2020, Hydrological Processes
  • "Disentangling the potential effects of land-use and climate change on stream conditions," 2020, Global Change Biology
  • "Hydrologic Model Sensitivity to Temporal Aggregation of Meteorological Forcing Data: A Case Study for the Contiguous United States," 2021, Journal of Hydrometeorology
  • "Spatiotemporal Variability of Modeled Watershed Scale Surface-Depression Storage and Runoff for the Conterminous United States," 2020, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Best Publications

  • A COMPARISON OF DELTA CHANGE AND DOWNSCALED GCM SCENARIOS FOR THREE MOUNTAINOUS BASINS IN THE UNITED STATES

    Lauren E. Hay;Robert L. Wilby;George H. Leavesley

  • Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): An overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops

    Q. Duan;J. Schaake;V. Andréassian;S. Franks

  • Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models

    Martyn P. Clark;Andrew G. Slater;David E. Rupp;Ross A. Woods

  • Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous USA: data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance

    A. J. Newman;M. P. Clark;K. Sampson;A. Wood

  • A comparison of downscaled and raw GCM output: implications for climate change scenarios in the San Juan River basin, Colorado

    R.L. Wilby;R.L. Wilby;L.E. Hay;G.H. Leavesley

  • Defining Ecological Drought for the Twenty-First Century

    Shelley D. Crausbay;Aaron R. Ramirez;Shawn L. Carter;Molly S. Cross

  • The Schaake Shuffle: A Method for Reconstructing Space–Time Variability in Forecasted Precipitation and Temperature Fields

    Martyn Clark;Subhrendu Gangopadhyay;Lauren Hay;Balaji Rajagopalan

  • Hydrological responses to dynamically and statistically downscaled climate model output

    Robert L. Wilby;Robert L. Wilby;Lauren E. Hay;William J. Gutowski;Raymond W. Arritt

  • Rain-on-Snow Events in the Western United States

    Gregory J. McCabe;Martyn P. Clark;Lauren E. Hay

  • Use of statistically and dynamically downscaled atmospheric model output for hydrologic simulations in three mountainous basins in the western United States

    L.E. Hay;M.P. Clark

  • Assimilation of snow covered area information into hydrologic and land-surface models

    Martyn P. Clark;Andrew G. Slater;Andrew P. Barrett;Lauren E. Hay

  • PRMS-IV, the precipitation-runoff modeling system, version 4

    Steven L. Markstrom;R. Steve Regan;Lauren E. Hay;Roland J. Viger

  • Simulation of precipitation by weather type analysis

    Lauren E. Hay;Gregory J. McCabe;David M. Wolock;Mark A. Ayers

  • Use of Regional Climate Model Output for Hydrologic Simulations

    Lauren E. Hay;Martyn P. Clark;Robert L. Wilby;William J. Gutowski Jr.

  • Flow regime alterations under changing climate in two river basins: implications for freshwater ecosystems

    C. A. Gibson;J. L. Meyer;N. L. Poff;L. E. Hay

  • Accelerating advances in continental domain hydrologic modeling

    Stacey A. Archfield;Martyn Clark;Berit Arheimer;Lauren E. Hay

  • Use of Medium-Range Numerical Weather Prediction Model Output to Produce Forecasts of Streamflow

    Martyn P. Clark;Lauren E. Hay

  • Step Wise, Multiple Objective Calibration of a Hydrologic Model for a Snowmelt Dominated Basin

    Lauren E. Hay;George H. Leavesley;Martyn P. Clark;Steve L. Markstrom

  • Watershed-Scale Response to Climate Change through the Twenty-First Century for Selected Basins across the United States

    Lauren E. Hay;Steven L. Markstrom;Christian D. Ward-Garrison

  • mizuRoute version 1: a river network routing tool for a continental domain water resources applications

    Naoki Mizukami;Martyn P. Clark;Kevin Sampson;Bart Nijssen

  • Use of weather types to disaggregate general circulation model predictions

    Lauren E. Hay;Gregory J. McCabe;David M. Wolock;Mark A. Ayers

Frequent Co-Authors

Gregory J. McCabe
Gregory J. McCabe United States Geological Survey
Martyn P. Clark
Martyn P. Clark University of Saskatchewan
Terri S. Hogue
Terri S. Hogue Colorado School of Mines
Robert L. Wilby
Robert L. Wilby Loughborough University
David M. Wolock
David M. Wolock United States Geological Survey
William A. Battaglin
William A. Battaglin United States Geological Survey
Thorsten Wagener
Thorsten Wagener University of Potsdam
Randall J. Hunt
Randall J. Hunt United States Geological Survey
Balaji Rajagopalan
Balaji Rajagopalan University of Colorado Boulder
William J. Gutowski
William J. Gutowski Iowa State 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, exploring related online degrees can broaden career opportunities. Programs like online dsw programs in social work often address environmental justice and community health, two critical areas linked to sustainability and conservation efforts.

If you’re looking for flexibility, some students choose best affordable online general studies degree programs. These programs allow a customizable curriculum that can incorporate environmental topics alongside other fields, which is ideal for interdisciplinary careers.

Additionally, some may prefer an easy bachelor's degree focusing on foundational science or environmental awareness. These options provide a quicker path to entering the workforce or pursuing specialized certifications.

For those focused more specifically on earth sciences, online geology programs offer an excellent pathway. These programs deepen understanding of soil, water, and atmospheric systems, which are vital for careers in environmental consulting, resource management, and research.

Best Scientists Citing Lauren E. Hay

Trending Scientists