World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
38
Citations
5447
World Ranking
8651
National Ranking
3093

Mark D. Tomer 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 Mark D. Tomer 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: 123 publications — 26th percentile

26% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Mark D. Tomer 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 Mark D. Tomer 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: 38 D-Index — 12th percentile

12% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Mark D. Tomer is affiliated with the US Department of Agriculture in the United States. Their research primarily addresses topics within environmental science and agricultural and biological sciences. The focus areas include water science and technology, soil science, environmental chemistry, ecology, and global and planetary change.

The main topics of Mark D. Tomer's work cover soil erosion and sediment transport, hydrology and watershed management studies, soil and water nutrient dynamics, hydrology and sediment transport processes, flood risk assessment and management, hydrological forecasting using artificial intelligence, as well as land use and ecosystem services.

Mark D. Tomer has contributed to multiple publications across a variety of scholarly journals. Frequent publication venues include the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, The Science of The Total Environment, Geomorphology, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, and New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. The Journal of Soil and Water Conservation stands out with the highest number of publications featuring their research.

Selected recent papers authored or co-authored by Mark D. Tomer are:

  • Evaluating the contribution of subsurface drainage to watershed water yield using SWAT+ with groundwater modeling, 2021, The Science of The Total Environment
  • Farmer engagement using a precision approach to watershed-scale conservation planning: What do we know?, 2020, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
  • Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework: Watershed applications, research opportunities, and training resources, 2020, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
  • Automated measurement of eroding streambank volume from high-resolution aerial imagery and terrain analysis, 2020, Geomorphology
  • Biomass Production with Conservation Practices for Two Iowa Watersheds, 2020, JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association

Mark D. Tomer frequently collaborates with a group of co-authors including Sarah Porter, David James, J.D. Van Horn, Thomas M. Isenhart, and Ann Lewandowski. These collaborations reflect ongoing partnerships in their field of study.

Best Publications

  • A simple approach to distinguish land-use and climate-change effects on watershed hydrology

    Mark D. Tomer;Keith E. Schilling

  • Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn–soybean croplands

    Lisa A. Schulte;Jarad Niemi;Matthew J. Helmers;Matt Liebman

  • HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR A LARGE TILE-DRAINED WATERSHED IN IOWA

    C. H. Green;M. D. Tomer;M. Di Luzio;J. G. Arnold

  • Evaluation of nitrate nitrogen fluxes from a tile-drained watershed in central Iowa.

    M. D. Tomer;D. W. Meek;D. B. Jaynes;J. L. Hatfield

  • Long-term effects of nitrogen fertilizer use on ground water nitrate in two small watersheds.

    M. D. Tomer;M. R. Burkart

  • A preliminary watershed scale soil quality assessment in north central Iowa, USA

    Douglas L. Karlen;Mark D. Tomer;Jerry Neppel;Cynthia A. Cambardella

  • The challenge of documenting water quality benefits of conservation practices: a review of USDA-ARS's conservation effects assessment project watershed studies

    M. D. Tomer;M. A. Locke

  • Quantifying relative contributions from sediment sources in Conservation Effects Assessment Project watersheds

    C.G. Wilson;R.A. Kuhnle;D.D. Bosch;J.L. Steiner

  • Optimizing the placement of riparian practices in a watershed using terrain analysis

    Mark D. Tomer;D. E. James;Thomas M. Isenhart

  • Sediment removal by prairie filter strips in row-cropped ephemeral watersheds.

    Matthew J. Helmers;Xiaobo Zhou;Heidi Asbjornsen;Randy Kolka

  • Combining precision conservation technologies into a flexible framework to facilitate agricultural watershed planning

    Mark D. Tomer;Sarah A. Porter;David E. James;Kathleen M.B. Boomer

  • Nutrient removal by prairie filter strips in agricultural landscapes

    Xiaobo Zhou;Matthew J. Helmers;Heidi Asbjornsen;Randall K. Kolka

  • Assessment of the Iowa River's South Fork watershed: Part 1. Water quality

    M. D. Tomer;T. B. Moorman;C. G. Rossi

  • Native prairie filter strips reduce runoff from hillslopes under annual row-crop systems in Iowa, USA

    V. Hernandez-Santana;V. Hernandez-Santana;X. Zhou;Matthew J. Helmers;Heidi Asbjornsen;Heidi Asbjornsen

  • Methods to prioritize placement of riparian buffers for improved water quality

    Mark D. Tomer;Michael G. Dosskey;Michael R. Burkart;David E. James

  • Reducing nitrogen export from the corn belt to the Gulf of Mexico: agricultural strategies for remediating hypoxia.

    Eileen McLellan;Dale M. Robertson;Keith Schilling;Mark Tomer

  • Agricultural conservation planning framework: 1. Developing multipractice watershed planning scenarios and assessing nutrient reduction potential.

    Mark D. Tomer;S. A. Porter;K. M. B. Boomer;D. E. James

  • Streambank erosion rates and loads within a single watershed: Bridging the gap between temporal and spatial scales

    Jason A. Palmer;Keith E. Schilling;Thomas M. Isenhart;Richard C. Schultz

  • Source-pathway separation of multiple contaminants during a rainfall-runoff event in an artificially drained agricultural watershed.

    Mark D. Tomer;C. G. Wilson;Thomas B. Moorman;K. J. Cole

  • Downstream approaches to phosphorus management in agricultural landscapes: Regional applicability and use

    R. Kröger;E. J. Dunne;J. Novak;K. W. King

Frequent Co-Authors

Thomas M. Isenhart
Thomas M. Isenhart Iowa State University
Matthew J. Helmers
Matthew J. Helmers Iowa State University
Keith E. Schilling
Keith E. Schilling University of Iowa
Thomas B. Moorman
Thomas B. Moorman Agricultural Research Service
Heidi Asbjornsen
Heidi Asbjornsen University of New Hampshire
Catherine L. Kling
Catherine L. Kling Cornell University
Ali M. Sadeghi
Ali M. Sadeghi Agricultural Research Service
Cynthia A. Cambardella
Cynthia A. Cambardella Agricultural Research Service
Craig S. T. Daughtry
Craig S. T. Daughtry Agricultural Research Service
Matt Liebman
Matt Liebman 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

Pursuing a degree related to Environmental Sciences online offers flexibility and accessibility. Many students explore diverse pathways, including interdisciplinary programs that integrate social work, education, and general studies to address environmental challenges from multiple perspectives.

For those interested in advanced education leadership roles or community advocacy, some programs guide students from EdS to EdD programs, which focus on educational strategies to foster environmental awareness. These paths build expertise in both scientific and administrative domains.

Social workers with an environmental focus can benefit from fully funded DSW programs that offer specialization opportunities in sustainability and environmental justice. These professional doctorates prepare graduates to design and implement impactful policies and support vulnerable populations affected by environmental issues.

If affordability and flexibility are key, an online general studies bachelor degree cheap option can be an excellent starting point. This degree allows students to customize their curriculum, combining environmental science with complementary subjects, thus broadening career options.

Finally, for those seeking a less intensive pathway to a degree, the easiest bachelor degree to get online can still provide foundational knowledge relevant to environmental careers, helping individuals transition into roles such as environmental technicians, educators, or policy assistants.

Best Scientists Citing Mark D. Tomer

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles