World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
51
Citations
11803
World Ranking
4683
National Ranking
322

Peter Schall 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 Peter Schall 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: 282 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: 26 scientists 501–510 publications: 17 scientists 511–520 publications: 19 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 681–689 publications: 4 scientists 690+ publications: 100 scientists
41 publications 690+

This scientist: 128 publications — 29th percentile

29% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 690 publications or more.

Peter Schall 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 Peter Schall 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: 198 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: 20 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: 9 scientists 126+ D-Index: 92 scientists
30 D-Index 126+

This scientist: 51 D-Index — 52nd percentile

52% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 126 D-Index or more.

Overview

Peter Schall is affiliated with the University of Göttingen in Germany. Their research primarily spans the fields of Environmental Science and Agricultural and Biological Sciences, focusing on various subfields such as Nature and Landscape Conservation, Insect Science, Global and Planetary Change, Ecology, and Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics.

Their research interests are reflected in the main topics of their work, which include Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies, Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies, Forest Management and Policy, Species Distribution and Climate Change, Forest ecology and management, Mycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions, and Lichen and fungal ecology.

Peter Schall has contributed to several recent scientific papers, including:

  • Land-use intensity alters networks between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services (2020), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Mapping forest tree species in high resolution UAV-based RGB-imagery by means of convolutional neural networks (2020), ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing
  • Late-spring frost risk between 1959 and 2017 decreased in North America but increased in Europe and Asia (2020), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Heterogeneity-diversity relationships differ between and within trophic levels in temperate forests (2020), Nature Ecology & Evolution
  • Plant species richness increases with light availability, but not variability, in temperate forests understorey (2020), BMC Ecology

Frequent co-authors in their research include Christian Ammer, Martin M. Goßner, Wolfgang W. Weisser, Inken Doerfler, and Steffen Boch.

Their work has been published in various scientific journals and platforms. The most frequent publication venues include:

  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
  • Forest Ecology and Management
  • European Journal of Forest Research
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
  • Journal of Applied Ecology

Best Publications

  • Positive biodiversity-productivity relationship predominant in global forests

    Jingjing Liang;Thomas W. Crowther;Nicolas Picard;Susan Wiser

  • Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers

    Sebastian Seibold;Martin M. Gossner;Nadja K. Simons;Nadja K. Simons;Nico Blüthgen

  • Land-use intensification causes multitrophic homogenization of grassland communities

    Martin M. Gossner;Martin M. Gossner;Thomas M. Lewinsohn;Thomas M. Lewinsohn;Tiemo Kahl;Fabrice Grassein

  • Adaptive forest management in central Europe: Climate change impacts, strategies and integrative concept

    Andreas Bolte;Christian Ammer;Magnus Löf;Palle Madsen

  • Interannual variation in land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity.

    Eric Allan;Oliver Bossdorf;Oliver Bossdorf;Carsten F. Dormann;Daniel Prati

  • Land-use intensity alters networks between biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and services.

    María R. Felipe-Lucia;Santiago Soliveres;Caterina Penone;Markus Fischer

  • Integrated global assessment of the natural forest carbon potential

    Unknown

  • Mapping forest tree species in high resolution UAV-based RGB-imagery by means of convolutional neural networks

    Felix Schiefer;Teja Kattenborn;Teja Kattenborn;Annett Frick;Julian Frey

  • Multiple forest attributes underpin the supply of multiple ecosystem services

    María R. Felipe-Lucia;Santiago Soliveres;Santiago Soliveres;Caterina Penone;Peter Manning

  • The impact of even‐aged and uneven‐aged forest management on regional biodiversity of multiple taxa in European beech forests

    Peter Schall;Martin M. Gossner;Steffi Heinrichs;Markus Fischer

  • Quantifying stand structural complexity and its relationship with forest management, tree species diversity and microclimate

    Martin Ehbrecht;Peter Schall;Christian Ammer;Dominik Seidel

  • Late-spring frost risk between 1959 and 2017 decreased in North America but increased in Europe and Asia.

    Constantin M. Zohner;Lidong Mo;Susanne S. Renner;Jens-Christian Svenning

  • Heterogeneity–diversity relationships differ between and within trophic levels in temperate forests

    Lea Heidrich;Soyeon Bae;Shaun Levick;Sebastian Seibold;Sebastian Seibold

  • Site-adapted admixed tree species reduce drought susceptibility of mature European beech.

    Jérôme Metz;Peter Annighöfer;Peter Schall;Jorma Zimmermann

  • How to quantify forest management intensity in Central European forests

    Peter Schall;Christian Ammer

  • Crown modeling by terrestrial laser scanning as an approach to assess the effect of aboveground intra- and interspecific competition on tree growth

    Jérôme Metz;Dominik Seidel;Peter Schall;Dina Scheffer

  • Biomass allocation to roots and shoots is more sensitive to shade and drought in European beech than in Norway spruce seedlings

    Peter Schall;Christina Lödige;Michael Beck;Christian Ammer

  • Specialisation and diversity of multiple trophic groups are promoted by different forest features

    Caterina Penone;Eric Allan;Santiago Soliveres;María R Felipe‐Lucia

  • Plant species richness increases with light availability, but not variability, in temperate forests understorey.

    Carsten F. Dormann;Maurizio Bagnara;Steffen Boch;Judith Hinderling

  • Co-limitation towards lower latitudes shapes global forest diversity gradients

    Unknown

  • Deadwood enrichment in European forests – Which tree species should be used to promote saproxylic beetle diversity?

    Martin M. Gossner;Beate Wende;Shaun R. Levick;Peter Schall

  • Relations between forest management, stand structure and productivity across different types of Central European forests

    Peter Schall;Ernst Detlef Schulze;Markus Fischer;Manfred Ayasse

  • Radar vision in the mapping of forest biodiversity from space

    Soyeon Bae;Shaun R. Levick;Shaun R. Levick;Lea Heidrich;Paul Magdon

Frequent Co-Authors

Christian Ammer
Christian Ammer University of Göttingen
Markus Fischer
Markus Fischer University of Bern
Ernst-Detlef Schulze
Ernst-Detlef Schulze Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
Wolfgang W. Weisser
Wolfgang W. Weisser Technical University of Munich
Steffen Boch
Steffen Boch Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research
Jörg Müller
Jörg Müller Heinz Sielmann Foundation
Sebastian Seibold
Sebastian Seibold Technical University of Munich
Dominik Seidel
Dominik Seidel University of Göttingen
Kirsten Jung
Kirsten Jung Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München

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 students interested in Environmental Sciences, several related online degrees can broaden career opportunities. Many turn to affordable and flexible programs, such as those listed among the most affordable online general studies degree programs, which offer a foundation for interdisciplinary learning and skill development.

Those seeking a smoother academic path might explore options featured in the easiest bachelor degree to get. These programs often provide timely graduation opportunities without compromising key knowledge areas related to environmental studies.

Specialized fields such as geology play an essential role in environmental science careers. Online geology degrees can be pursued through some of the best programs highlighted in the geology degree online section, offering robust training in earth sciences vital for environmental assessment and management.

Additionally, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) expertise is increasingly valuable. Students can consider top-tier programs ranked under the best gis undergraduate programs to develop skills in mapping and spatial analysis critical for environmental planning and decision-making.

Best Scientists Citing Peter Schall

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles