World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Plant Science and Agronomy

D-Index
48
Citations
12525
World Ranking
2346
National Ranking
590

Nathan Phillips publication distribution in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Nathan Phillips sits on this spectrum.

36–40 publications: 2 scientists 41–45 publications: 7 scientists 46–50 publications: 40 scientists 51–55 publications: 58 scientists 56–60 publications: 60 scientists 61–65 publications: 107 scientists 66–70 publications: 130 scientists 71–75 publications: 153 scientists 76–80 publications: 191 scientists 81–85 publications: 199 scientists 86–90 publications: 206 scientists 91–95 publications: 218 scientists 96–100 publications: 226 scientists 101–105 publications: 227 scientists 106–110 publications: 247 scientists 111–115 publications: 255 scientists 116–120 publications: 253 scientists 121–125 publications: 233 scientists 126–130 publications: 219 scientists 131–135 publications: 201 scientists 136–140 publications: 194 scientists 141–145 publications: 176 scientists 146–150 publications: 157 scientists 151–155 publications: 147 scientists 156–160 publications: 151 scientists 161–165 publications: 159 scientists 166–170 publications: 137 scientists 171–175 publications: 128 scientists 176–180 publications: 126 scientists 181–185 publications: 98 scientists 186–190 publications: 114 scientists 191–195 publications: 100 scientists 196–200 publications: 90 scientists 201–205 publications: 71 scientists 206–210 publications: 98 scientists 211–215 publications: 70 scientists 216–220 publications: 86 scientists 221–225 publications: 61 scientists 226–230 publications: 58 scientists 231–235 publications: 53 scientists 236–240 publications: 64 scientists 241–245 publications: 39 scientists 246–250 publications: 46 scientists 251–255 publications: 51 scientists 256–260 publications: 36 scientists 261–265 publications: 44 scientists 266–270 publications: 35 scientists 271–275 publications: 30 scientists 276–280 publications: 33 scientists 281–285 publications: 35 scientists 286–290 publications: 36 scientists 291–295 publications: 26 scientists 296–300 publications: 26 scientists 301–305 publications: 31 scientists 306–310 publications: 30 scientists 311–315 publications: 21 scientists 316–320 publications: 29 scientists 321–325 publications: 14 scientists 326–330 publications: 15 scientists 331–335 publications: 15 scientists 336–340 publications: 17 scientists 341–345 publications: 15 scientists 346–350 publications: 12 scientists 351–355 publications: 17 scientists 356–360 publications: 18 scientists 361–365 publications: 12 scientists 366–370 publications: 11 scientists 371–375 publications: 6 scientists 376–380 publications: 6 scientists 381–385 publications: 11 scientists 386–390 publications: 9 scientists 391–395 publications: 10 scientists 396–400 publications: 8 scientists 401–405 publications: 4 scientists 406–410 publications: 9 scientists 411–415 publications: 11 scientists 416–420 publications: 4 scientists 421–425 publications: 7 scientists 426–430 publications: 4 scientists 431–435 publications: 3 scientists 436–440 publications: 5 scientists 441–445 publications: 8 scientists 446–450 publications: 6 scientists 451–455 publications: 7 scientists 456–460 publications: 5 scientists 461–465 publications: 6 scientists 466 publications: 2 scientists 467+ publications: 99 scientists
36 publications 467+

This scientist: 84 publications — 14th percentile

14% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 467 publications or more.

Nathan Phillips D-index placement in Plant Science and Agronomy in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Nathan Phillips sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 200 scientists 31 D-Index: 236 scientists 32 D-Index: 253 scientists 33 D-Index: 283 scientists 34 D-Index: 288 scientists 35 D-Index: 240 scientists 36 D-Index: 246 scientists 37 D-Index: 243 scientists 38 D-Index: 247 scientists 39 D-Index: 229 scientists 40 D-Index: 232 scientists 41 D-Index: 230 scientists 42 D-Index: 228 scientists 43 D-Index: 219 scientists 44 D-Index: 193 scientists 45 D-Index: 164 scientists 46 D-Index: 158 scientists 47 D-Index: 143 scientists 48 D-Index: 131 scientists 49 D-Index: 127 scientists 50 D-Index: 122 scientists 51 D-Index: 122 scientists 52 D-Index: 110 scientists 53 D-Index: 102 scientists 54 D-Index: 98 scientists 55 D-Index: 79 scientists 56 D-Index: 85 scientists 57 D-Index: 88 scientists 58 D-Index: 91 scientists 59 D-Index: 62 scientists 60 D-Index: 61 scientists 61 D-Index: 59 scientists 62 D-Index: 54 scientists 63 D-Index: 61 scientists 64 D-Index: 59 scientists 65 D-Index: 58 scientists 66 D-Index: 41 scientists 67 D-Index: 49 scientists 68 D-Index: 39 scientists 69 D-Index: 32 scientists 70 D-Index: 40 scientists 71 D-Index: 47 scientists 72 D-Index: 38 scientists 73 D-Index: 28 scientists 74 D-Index: 29 scientists 75 D-Index: 28 scientists 76 D-Index: 22 scientists 77 D-Index: 21 scientists 78 D-Index: 25 scientists 79 D-Index: 26 scientists 80 D-Index: 19 scientists 81 D-Index: 16 scientists 82 D-Index: 12 scientists 83 D-Index: 16 scientists 84 D-Index: 14 scientists 85 D-Index: 11 scientists 86 D-Index: 17 scientists 87 D-Index: 13 scientists 88 D-Index: 10 scientists 89 D-Index: 12 scientists 90 D-Index: 18 scientists 91 D-Index: 16 scientists 92 D-Index: 16 scientists 93 D-Index: 17 scientists 94 D-Index: 12 scientists 95 D-Index: 8 scientists 96 D-Index: 9 scientists 97 D-Index: 9 scientists 98 D-Index: 11 scientists 99 D-Index: 12 scientists 100 D-Index: 5 scientists 101 D-Index: 8 scientists 102 D-Index: 4 scientists 103 D-Index: 11 scientists 104 D-Index: 5 scientists 105 D-Index: 9 scientists 106 D-Index: 7 scientists 107 D-Index: 4 scientists 108 D-Index: 8 scientists 109+ D-Index: 99 scientists
30 D-Index 109+

This scientist: 48 D-Index — 64th percentile

64% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 109 D-Index or more.

Overview

What is he best known for?

The fields of study he is best known for:

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Ecosystem

His primary scientific interests are in Botany, Transpiration, Stomatal conductance, Canopy and Horticulture. His work on Vapour Pressure Deficit, Xylem and Savia as part of general Botany study is frequently linked to Area ratio, bridging the gap between disciplines. His Vapour Pressure Deficit research incorporates elements of Atmospheric sciences and Vapor pressure.

He combines subjects such as Conductance, Soil water and Water content with his study of Transpiration. Stomatal conductance is the subject of his research, which falls under Photosynthesis. As part of the same scientific family, Nathan Phillips usually focuses on Photosynthesis, concentrating on Ecology and intersecting with Agronomy and Vegetative reproduction.

His most cited work include:

  • Survey and synthesis of intra‐ and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit (803 citations)
  • The hydraulic limitation hypothesis revisited (454 citations)
  • Cloud cover limits net CO2 uptake and growth of a rainforest tree during tropical rainy seasons (310 citations)

What are the main themes of his work throughout his whole career to date?

Nathan Phillips spends much of his time researching Botany, Transpiration, Stomatal conductance, Horticulture and Vapour Pressure Deficit. When carried out as part of a general Botany research project, his work on Xylem, Photosynthesis and Eucalyptus is frequently linked to work in Water transport, therefore connecting diverse disciplines of study. His biological study spans a wide range of topics, including Water use, Ecology, Evapotranspiration, Agronomy and Soil science.

His Stomatal conductance study combines topics from a wide range of disciplines, such as Dry weight, Canopy, Humidity and Vapor pressure. His research in Horticulture intersects with topics in Hydraulic conductivity, Eucalyptus saligna, Frond and Crown. His studies deal with areas such as Atmospheric sciences, Leaf area index and Growing season as well as Vapour Pressure Deficit.

He most often published in these fields:

  • Botany (50.00%)
  • Transpiration (33.93%)
  • Stomatal conductance (29.46%)

What were the highlights of his more recent work (between 2014-2021)?

  • Natural gas (8.04%)
  • Methane (8.93%)
  • Ecology (21.43%)

In recent papers he was focusing on the following fields of study:

Nathan Phillips mainly focuses on Natural gas, Methane, Ecology, Respiration and Transpiration. His work focuses on many connections between Natural gas and other disciplines, such as Atmospheric sciences, that overlap with his field of interest in Phenology and Biosphere. His Methane study combines topics in areas such as Leak, Atmosphere, Downstream and Fugitive emissions.

His Ecology research incorporates themes from Photosynthetically active radiation and Arecaceae. His Respiration research is multidisciplinary, incorporating perspectives in Photosynthesis, Ecophysiology, Extinction, Compensation point and Shoot. Nathan Phillips is involved in the study of Transpiration that focuses on Vapour Pressure Deficit in particular.

Between 2014 and 2021, his most popular works were:

  • Methane emissions from natural gas infrastructure and use in the urban region of Boston, Massachusetts (145 citations)
  • Post-drought decline of the Amazon carbon sink. (41 citations)
  • Fugitive methane emissions from leak-prone natural gas distribution infrastructure in urban environments ☆ (37 citations)

In his most recent research, the most cited papers focused on:

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Ecosystem

The scientist’s investigation covers issues in Methane, Natural gas, Leak, Greenhouse gas and Fugitive emissions. His research integrates issues of Waste management, Fossil fuel and Pipeline in his study of Leak. The study incorporates disciplines such as Atmosphere and Environmental engineering, Upstream, Downstream, Midstream in addition to Greenhouse gas.

His work in Fugitive emissions is not limited to one particular discipline; it also encompasses Atmospheric sciences.

Best Publications

  • Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO 2 -enriched atmosphere

    Ram Oren;David S Ellsworth;David S Ellsworth;Kurt H Johnsen;Nathan C. Phillips

  • Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit

    R. Oren;J. S. Sperry;G. G. Katul;D. E. Pataki

  • The hydraulic limitation hypothesis revisited

    Michael G. Ryan;Nathan Phillips;Barbara J. Bond

  • Cloud cover limits net CO2 uptake and growth of a rainforest tree during tropical rainy seasons

    Eric A. Graham;Stephen S. Mulkey;Kaoru Kitajima;Nathan G. Phillips

  • Radial patterns of xylem sap flow in non‐, diffuse‐ and ring‐porous tree species

    N. Phillips;R. Oren;R. Zimmermann

  • Reliance on stored water increases with tree size in three species in the Pacific Northwest.

    N G Phillips;M G Ryan;M G Ryan;B J Bond;N G McDowell

  • Tree water storage and its diurnal dynamics related to sap flow and changes in stem volume in old-growth Douglas-fir trees

    Jan Čermák;Jiří Kučera;William L. Bauerle;Nathan Phillips

  • The relationship between tree height and leaf area: sapwood area ratio.

    N. Mcdowell;H. Barnard;B. J. Bond;T. Hinckley

  • Interspecific variation in nighttime transpiration and stomatal conductance in a mixed New England deciduous forest.

    Michael J Daley;Nathan G Phillips

  • Sap-flux-scaled transpiration responses to light, vapor pressure deficit, and leaf area reduction in a flooded Taxodium distichum forest.

    R. Oren;N. Phillips;B. E. Ewers;D. E. Pataki

  • An investigation of hydraulic limitation and compensation in large, old Douglas-fir trees.

    Nate G. McDowell;Nathan Phillips;Claire Lunch;Barbara J. Bond

  • Scaling xylem sap flux and soil water balance and calculating variance: a method for partitioning water flux in forests

    Ram Oren;Nathan Phillips;Gabriel Katul;Brent E. Ewers

  • A comparison of daily representations of canopy conductance based on two conditional time- averaging methods and the dependence of daily conductance on environmental factors

    Nathan Phillips;Ram Oren

  • Time constant for water transport in loblolly pine trees estimated from time series of evaporative demand and stem sapflow

    N. Phillips;Abhijit Nagchaudhuri;R. Oren;Gabriel Katul

  • The zone of vegetation influence on baseflow revealed by diel patterns of streamflow and vegetation water use in a headwater basin

    Barbara J. Bond;Julia A. Jones;Georgianne Moore;Nathan Phillips

  • Sensitivity of mean canopy stomatal conductance to vapor pressure deficit in a flooded Taxodium distichum L. forest: hydraulic and non-hydraulic effects

    R. Oren;J. S. Sperry;B. E. Ewers;D. E. Pataki

  • Leaf and canopy responses to elevated CO2 in a pine forest under free-air CO2 enrichment.

    David S. Ellsworth;Ram Oren;Ce Huang;Nathan Phillips

  • Structural and compositional controls on transpiration in 40- and 450-year-old riparian forests in western Oregon, USA.

    Georgianne W. Moore;Barbara J. Bond;Julia A. Jones;Nathan Phillips

  • Responses of sap flux and stomatal conductance of Pinus taeda L. trees to stepwise reductions in leaf area

    Diane E. Pataki;Ram Oren;Nathan Phillips

  • Hydraulic Capacitance: Biophysics and Functional Significance of Internal Water Sources in Relation to Tree Size

    Fabian G. Scholz;Fabian G. Scholz;Nathan G. Phillips;Sandra J. Bucci;Sandra J. Bucci;Frederick C. Meinzer

  • WATER BALANCE DELINEATES THE SOIL LAYER IN WHICH MOISTURE AFFECTS CANOPY CONDUCTANCE

    Ram Oren;Brent E. Ewers;Philip Todd;Nathan Phillips

  • Canopy and hydraulic conductance in young, mature and old Douglas-fir trees.

    Nathan Phillips;Barbara J. Bond;Nate G. McDowell;Michael G. Ryan;Michael G. Ryan

  • Exposure to preindustrial, current and future atmospheric CO2 and temperature differentially affects growth and photosynthesis in Eucalyptus

    Oula Ghannoum;Nathan G. Phillips;Nathan G. Phillips;Jann P. Conroy;Renee A. Smith

Frequent Co-Authors

Ram Oren
Ram Oren Duke University
James D. Lewis
James D. Lewis Fordham University
Barry A. Logan
Barry A. Logan Bowdoin College
David T. Tissue
David T. Tissue Western Sydney University
Barbara J. Bond
Barbara J. Bond Oregon State University
Michael G. Ryan
Michael G. Ryan Colorado State University
Brent E. Ewers
Brent E. Ewers University of Wyoming
Gabriel G. Katul
Gabriel G. Katul Duke University
Lucy R. Hutyra
Lucy R. Hutyra Boston University
Nate G. McDowell
Nate G. McDowell Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

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:

Best Scientists Citing Nathan Phillips

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles