World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Environmental Sciences

D-Index
52
Citations
17982
World Ranking
4370
National Ranking
1628

Philip W. Gassman 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 Philip W. Gassman 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: 218 publications — 70th percentile

70% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Philip W. Gassman 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 Philip W. Gassman 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: 52 D-Index — 55th percentile

55% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Overview

Philip W. Gassman is affiliated with Iowa State University in the United States and has contributed extensively to the field of Environmental Science. Their research focuses primarily on Water Science and Technology, Global and Planetary Change, Environmental Chemistry, Environmental Engineering, and Soil Science.

The scientist's main research topics include Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies, Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics, Flood Risk Assessment and Management, Hydrology and Drought Analysis, Soil erosion and sediment transport, Hydrological Forecasting Using AI, and Climate change impacts on agriculture.

Philip W. Gassman has authored several papers, contributing to notable publications such as:

  • "A review of SWAT applications, performance and future needs for simulation of hydro-climatic extremes" (2020) in Advances in Water Resources
  • "A review of alternative climate products for SWAT modelling: Sources, assessment and future directions" (2021) in The Science of The Total Environment
  • "The urgency of transforming the Midwestern U.S. landscape into more than corn and soybean" (2020) in Agriculture and Human Values
  • "Development of alternative SWAT-based models for simulating water budget components and streamflow for a karstic-influenced watershed" (2020) in CATENA
  • "Analysis of alternative climate datasets and evapotranspiration methods for the Upper Mississippi River Basin using SWAT within HAWQS" (2020) in The Science of The Total Environment

Their frequent co-authors include:

  • Jeffrey G. Arnold
  • Michael J. White
  • Keith E. Schilling
  • Janette R. Thompson
  • Matt Liebman

Philip W. Gassman's research has been published in several venues multiple times, including:

  • SSRN Electronic Journal
  • The Science of The Total Environment
  • Agriculture
  • JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association
  • Water

Best Publications

  • The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions

    Philip W. Gassman;Manuel R. Reyes;Colleen H. Green;Jeffrey G. Arnold

  • SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation

    J. G. Arnold;Daniel N. Moriasi;P. W. Gassman;K. C. Abbaspour

  • Applications of the SWAT Model Special Section: Overview and Insights.

    Philip W. Gassman;Ali M. Sadeghi;Raghavan Srinivasan

  • Impact of land use and land cover change on the water balance of a large agricultural watershed: Historical effects and future directions

    Keith E. Schilling;Manoj K. Jha;You-Kuan Zhang;Philip W. Gassman

  • APPLICATION OF SWAT FOR THE UPPER NORTH BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED

    A. Saleh;J. G. Arnold;P. W. Gassman;L. M. Hauck

  • EFFECT OF WATERSHED SUBDIVISION ON SWAT FLOW, SEDIMENT, AND NUTRIENT PREDICTIONS

    Manoj Jha;Philip W. Gassman;Silvia Secchi;Roy Gu

  • A general, process-oriented model for two competing plant species

    J. R. Kiniry;J. R. Williams;P. W. Gassman;P. Debaeke

  • A review of SWAT applications, performance and future needs for simulation of hydro-climatic extremes

    Mou Leong Tan;Philip W. Gassman;Xiaoying Yang;James Haywood

  • Climate Change Sensitivity Assessment on Upper Mississippi River Basin Streamflows Using SWAT

    Manoj K. Jha;Jeffrey G. Arnold;Philip W. Gassman;Filippo Giorgi

  • EPIC and APEX: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation

    X. Wang;J. R. Williams;P. W. Gassman;C. Baffaut

  • History of model development at Temple, Texas

    J. R. Williams;J. G. Arnold;J. R. Kiniry;P. W. Gassman

  • Water Quality Modeling for the Raccoon River Watershed Using SWAT

    M. K. Jha;P. W. Gassman;J. G. Arnold

  • The Agricultural Policy Environmental EXtender (APEX) Model: An Emerging Tool for Landscape and Watershed Environmental Analyses

    Philip W. Gassman;Jimmy R. Williams;Xiuying Wang;Ali Saleh

  • Historical Development and Applications of the EPIC and APEX Models

    Philip W. Gassman;Jimmy R. Williams;Verel W. Benson;R. César Izaurralde

  • EPIC model parameters for cereal, oilseed, and forage crops in the northern Great Plains region

    J. R. Kiniry;J. R. Williams;D. J. Major;R. C. Izaurralde

  • Review of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) applications in Brazil: Challenges and prospects

    Danielle de Almeida Bressiani;Philip W. Gassman;Josimar Gurgel Fernandes;Luis Hamilton Pospissil Garbossa

  • The Economics of Dead Zones: Causes, Impacts, Policy Challenges, and a Model of the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone

    Sergey Rabotyagov;Catherine Kling;Philip Gassman;Nancy Rabalais

  • Integrated ecological-economic modelling of water pollution abatement management options in the Upper Ems River Basin

    Martin Volk;Jesko Hirschfeld;Alexandra Dehnhardt;Gerd Schmidt

  • Least-cost control of agricultural nutrient contributions to the Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone

    Sergey Rabotyagov;Todd Campbell;Manoj Jha;Philip W. Gassman

  • Invited Review Article: The Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) Model: An Emerging Tool for Landscape and Watershed Environmental Analyses

    P. W. Gassman;J. R. Williams;X. Wang;A. Saleh

  • Climate Change Sensitivity Assessment on Upper Mississippi River Basin Streamflows Using SWAT

    Manoj Jha;Jeffrey G. Arnold;Philip W. Gassman;Roy Gu

Frequent Co-Authors

Catherine L. Kling
Catherine L. Kling Cornell University
Jimmy R. Williams
Jimmy R. Williams Biogen (United States)
Jeffrey G. Arnold
Jeffrey G. Arnold Agricultural Research Service
James R. Kiniry
James R. Kiniry Agricultural Research Service
David W. Archer
David W. Archer Agricultural Research Service
Jason F. Shogren
Jason F. Shogren University of Wyoming
Raghavan Srinivasan
Raghavan Srinivasan Texas A&M University
Keith E. Schilling
Keith E. Schilling University of Iowa
Roberto C. Izaurralde
Roberto C. Izaurralde University of Maryland, College Park
Bruce A. Babcock
Bruce A. Babcock University of California, Riverside

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 an online degree in Environmental Sciences can open up diverse career opportunities, from research and policy development to sustainable business practices. Many students consider advancing their education through specialized programs that fit their lifestyle and career goals.

For those interested in higher academic credentials, exploring online doctoral programs without dissertation offers a streamlined path to earning a doctorate, focusing more on practical application than extensive research writing.

If you already hold an Education Specialist (EdS) degree, transitioning to an eds to edd program can enhance your leadership skills and expand your professional scope in environmental education or administration.

Those seeking growth in social-environmental work may find value in fully funded dsw programs online, which combine social work expertise with environmental advocacy and policy influence.

Additionally, starting with one of the cheapest online general studies degree programs offers an affordable, flexible foundation that can be tailored toward environmental science interests and career readiness.

Best Scientists Citing Philip W. Gassman

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles