World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Discipline name D-Index World Ranking Current World Ranking National Ranking Current National Ranking Publications Citations
Plant Science and Agronomy 42 3464 3234 870 779 107 6900

Scott A. M. McAdam publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Scott A. M. McAdam between 2009 and 2026, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Scott A. M. McAdam published across 18 years, from 2009 to 2026, averaging 7.5 papers a year. Output peaked at 20 publications in 2021. 21 of the 135 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15 20
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2009 to 2026. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 20. Peak 20 publications in 2021. 2009: 1 publication 2010: 0 publications 2011: 3 publications 2012: 2 publications 2013: 4 publications 2014: 2 publications 2015: 7 publications 2016: 9 publications 2017: 12 publications 2018: 5 publications 2019: 5 publications 2020: 9 publications 2021: 20 publications 2022: 10 publications 2023: 14 publications 2024: 11 publications 2025: 20 publications 2026: 1 publication
2009 2026

135 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Scott A. M. McAdam: publications per year, 2009 to 2026
Year Publications
2009 1
2010 0
2011 3
2012 2
2013 4
2014 2
2015 7
2016 9
2017 12
2018 5
2019 5
2020 9
2021 20
2022 10
2023 14
2024 11
2025 20
2026 1
Total 135
Download as CSV

Scott A. M. McAdam 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 Scott A. M. McAdam sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150 200 250
Bar chart with 88 bars. Horizontal axis: publications, 36–40 to 467+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 255. Most scientists, 255, have 111–115 publications. The last bar groups every scientist with 467 publications or more. The highlighted bar, 106–110 publications, is where this scientist sits. 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
36–40 publications 467+

This scientist: 107 publications — 30th percentile

30% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View publications distribution as a table
Number of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists by publication count, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 6,494 ranked scientists.
Publications Scientists This scientist
36–40 2
41–45 7
46–50 40
51–55 58
56–60 60
61–65 107
66–70 130
71–75 153
76–80 191
81–85 199
86–90 206
91–95 218
96–100 226
101–105 227
106–110 247 107
111–115 255
116–120 253
121–125 233
126–130 219
131–135 201
136–140 194
141–145 176
146–150 157
151–155 147
156–160 151
161–165 159
166–170 137
171–175 128
176–180 126
181–185 98
186–190 114
191–195 100
196–200 90
201–205 71
206–210 98
211–215 70
216–220 86
221–225 61
226–230 58
231–235 53
236–240 64
241–245 39
246–250 46
251–255 51
256–260 36
261–265 44
266–270 35
271–275 30
276–280 33
281–285 35
286–290 36
291–295 26
296–300 26
301–305 31
306–310 30
311–315 21
316–320 29
321–325 14
326–330 15
331–335 15
336–340 17
341–345 15
346–350 12
351–355 17
356–360 18
361–365 12
366–370 11
371–375 6
376–380 6
381–385 11
386–390 9
391–395 10
396–400 8
401–405 4
406–410 9
411–415 11
416–420 4
421–425 7
426–430 4
431–435 3
436–440 5
441–445 8
446–450 6
451–455 7
456–460 5
461–465 6
466 2
467+ 99
Download as CSV

Scott A. M. McAdam 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 Scott A. M. McAdam sits on this spectrum.

No. of scientists
50 100 150 200 250
Bar chart with 80 bars. Horizontal axis: D-Index, 30 to 109+. Vertical axis: number of scientists, 0 to 288. Most scientists, 288, have 34 D-Index. The last bar groups every scientist with 109 D-Index or more. The highlighted bar, 42 D-Index, is where this scientist sits. 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: 42 D-Index — 49th percentile

49% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

View D-Index distribution as a table
Number of Plant Science and Agronomy scientists by D-index, Research.com 2026 ranking edition. Based on 6,494 ranked scientists.
D-Index Scientists This scientist
30 200
31 236
32 253
33 283
34 288
35 240
36 246
37 243
38 247
39 229
40 232
41 230
42 228 42
43 219
44 193
45 164
46 158
47 143
48 131
49 127
50 122
51 122
52 110
53 102
54 98
55 79
56 85
57 88
58 91
59 62
60 61
61 59
62 54
63 61
64 59
65 58
66 41
67 49
68 39
69 32
70 40
71 47
72 38
73 28
74 29
75 28
76 22
77 21
78 25
79 26
80 19
81 16
82 12
83 16
84 14
85 11
86 17
87 13
88 10
89 12
90 18
91 16
92 16
93 17
94 12
95 8
96 9
97 9
98 11
99 12
100 5
101 8
102 4
103 11
104 5
105 9
106 7
107 4
108 8
109+ 99
Download as CSV

Best Publications

  • Passive origins of stomatal control in vascular plants

    Tim J. Brodribb;Scott A. M. McAdam

  • Conifer species adapt to low-rainfall climates by following one of two divergent pathways

    Timothy J. Brodribb;Scott A.M. McAdam;Gregory J. Jordan;Samuel C.V. Martins

  • The Evolution of Mechanisms Driving the Stomatal Response to Vapor Pressure Deficit

    Scott A.M. McAdam;Timothy J. Brodribb

  • Visual quantification of embolism reveals leaf vulnerability to hydraulic failure

    Timothy J. Brodribb;Robert P. Skelton;Scott A. M. McAdam;Diane Bienaimé

  • Evolution of stomatal responsiveness to CO2 and optimization of water‐use efficiency among land plants

    Timothy J. Brodribb;Scott A. M. McAdam;Gregory J. Jordan;Taylor S. Feild

  • Shoot‐derived abscisic acid promotes root growth

    Scott A. M. McAdam;Timothy J. Brodribb;John J. Ross

  • Linking Turgor with ABA Biosynthesis: Implications for Stomatal Responses to Vapor Pressure Deficit across Land Plants.

    Scott A M McAdam;Timothy John Brodribb

  • Abscisic Acid Mediates a Divergence in the Drought Response of Two Conifers

    Timothy J. Brodribb;Scott A.M. McAdam

  • Stomatal responses to vapour pressure deficit are regulated by high speed gene expression in angiosperms.

    Scott A. M. McAdam;Frances C. Sussmilch;Timothy J. Brodribb

  • Evolution of the Stomatal Regulation of Plant Water Content.

    Timothy John Brodribb;Scott A M McAdam

  • Stomatal innovation and the rise of seed plants

    Scott A. M. McAdam;Timothy J. Brodribb

  • Separating active and passive influences on stomatal control of transpiration.

    Scott A.M. McAdam;Timothy J. Brodribb

  • Fern and lycophyte guard cells do not respond to endogenous abscisic acid

    Scott A.M. McAdam;Timothy J. Brodribb

  • Leaf water potential measurements using the pressure chamber: Synthetic testing of assumptions towards best practices for precision and accuracy

    Unknown

  • Gas exchange recovery following natural drought is rapid unless limited by loss of leaf hydraulic conductance: evidence from an evergreen woodland

    Robert P. Skelton;Robert P. Skelton;Timothy J. Brodribb;Scott A. M. McAdam;Patrick J. Mitchell

  • THESEUS1 modulates cell wall stiffness and abscisic acid production in Arabidopsis thaliana

    Unknown

  • Xylem and Stomata, Coordinated Through Time and Space

    Timothy J Brodribb;Scott Am McAdam;Madeline R Carins Murphy

  • Linking xylem network failure with leaf tissue death

    Timothy J. Brodribb;Craig Brodersen;Marc Carriquí;Vanessa Tonet

  • Mesophyll Cells Are the Main Site of Abscisic Acid Biosynthesis in Water-Stressed Leaves

    Scott A M McAdam;Timothy John Brodribb

  • Up-regulation of NCED3 and ABA biosynthesis occur within minutes of a decrease in leaf turgor but AHK1 is not required.

    Frances C Sussmilch;Timothy J Brodribb;Scott A M McAdam

  • Abscisic acid controlled sex before transpiration in vascular plants

    Scott A. M. McAdam;Timothy J. Brodribb;Jo Ann Banks;Rainer Hedrich

  • What are the evolutionary origins of stomatal responses to abscisic acid in land plants

    Frances C. Sussmilch;Timothy J. Brodribb;Scott A. M. McAdam

  • Ancestral stomatal control results in a canalization of fern and lycophyte adaptation to drought.

    Scott A. M. McAdam;Timothy J. Brodribb

Frequent Co-Authors

Timothy J. Brodribb
Timothy J. Brodribb University of Tasmania
John Ross
John Ross University of Tasmania
Krishna K. Niyogi
Krishna K. Niyogi University of California, Berkeley
Steven Jansen
Steven Jansen University of Ulm
Fábio M. DaMatta
Fábio M. DaMatta Universidade Federal de Viçosa
Gregory J. Jordan
Gregory J. Jordan University of Tasmania
Kun-Fang Cao
Kun-Fang Cao Guangxi University
Kirk J. Czymmek
Kirk J. Czymmek Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
Rainer Hedrich
Rainer Hedrich University of Würzburg
Rodrigo Vargas
Rodrigo Vargas University of Delaware

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 Scott A. M. McAdam

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles