World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Ecology and Evolution

D-Index
37
Citations
5163
World Ranking
6900
National Ranking
2326

Scott C. Stark publication distribution in Ecology and Evolution in 2026

The chart shows the distribution of publications by all Research.com ranked scientists in the field of Ecology and Evolution in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Scott C. Stark sits on this spectrum.

37–41 publications: 2 scientists 42–46 publications: 9 scientists 47–51 publications: 10 scientists 52–56 publications: 31 scientists 57–61 publications: 56 scientists 62–66 publications: 91 scientists 67–71 publications: 92 scientists 72–76 publications: 127 scientists 77–81 publications: 173 scientists 82–86 publications: 236 scientists 87–91 publications: 227 scientists 92–96 publications: 240 scientists 97–101 publications: 333 scientists 102–106 publications: 280 scientists 107–111 publications: 300 scientists 112–116 publications: 285 scientists 117–121 publications: 305 scientists 122–126 publications: 287 scientists 127–131 publications: 278 scientists 132–136 publications: 289 scientists 137–141 publications: 273 scientists 142–146 publications: 262 scientists 147–151 publications: 246 scientists 152–156 publications: 235 scientists 157–161 publications: 205 scientists 162–166 publications: 199 scientists 167–171 publications: 174 scientists 172–176 publications: 164 scientists 177–181 publications: 173 scientists 182–186 publications: 189 scientists 187–191 publications: 170 scientists 192–196 publications: 139 scientists 197–201 publications: 128 scientists 202–206 publications: 117 scientists 207–211 publications: 115 scientists 212–216 publications: 107 scientists 217–221 publications: 124 scientists 222–226 publications: 81 scientists 227–231 publications: 82 scientists 232–236 publications: 85 scientists 237–241 publications: 75 scientists 242–246 publications: 66 scientists 247–251 publications: 81 scientists 252–256 publications: 69 scientists 257–261 publications: 70 scientists 262–266 publications: 55 scientists 267–271 publications: 64 scientists 272–276 publications: 49 scientists 277–281 publications: 48 scientists 282–286 publications: 44 scientists 287–291 publications: 45 scientists 292–296 publications: 36 scientists 297–301 publications: 39 scientists 302–306 publications: 38 scientists 307–311 publications: 30 scientists 312–316 publications: 34 scientists 317–321 publications: 25 scientists 322–326 publications: 22 scientists 327–331 publications: 28 scientists 332–336 publications: 30 scientists 337–341 publications: 22 scientists 342–346 publications: 30 scientists 347–351 publications: 26 scientists 352–356 publications: 22 scientists 357–361 publications: 29 scientists 362–366 publications: 21 scientists 367–371 publications: 12 scientists 372–376 publications: 18 scientists 377–381 publications: 17 scientists 382–386 publications: 13 scientists 387–391 publications: 21 scientists 392–396 publications: 13 scientists 397–401 publications: 10 scientists 402–406 publications: 15 scientists 407–411 publications: 8 scientists 412–416 publications: 9 scientists 417–421 publications: 8 scientists 422–426 publications: 4 scientists 427–431 publications: 10 scientists 432–436 publications: 10 scientists 437–441 publications: 5 scientists 442–446 publications: 4 scientists 447–451 publications: 10 scientists 452–456 publications: 2 scientists 457–461 publications: 4 scientists 462–466 publications: 7 scientists 467–471 publications: 7 scientists 472–476 publications: 6 scientists 477–481 publications: 6 scientists 482–486 publications: 3 scientists 487–491 publications: 3 scientists 492–496 publications: 4 scientists 497–501 publications: 4 scientists 502–506 publications: 8 scientists 507–511 publications: 5 scientists 512–516 publications: 4 scientists 517–521 publications: 5 scientists 522–526 publications: 4 scientists 527–530 publications: 5 scientists 531+ publications: 100 scientists
37 publications 531+

This scientist: 99 publications — 18th percentile

18% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 531 publications or more.

Scott C. Stark D-index placement in Ecology and Evolution in 2026

The chart shows the D-index (discipline H-index) distribution of Ecology and Evolution scientists ranked by Research.com in 2026. The highlighted bar marks where Scott C. Stark sits on this spectrum.

30 D-Index: 95 scientists 31 D-Index: 123 scientists 32 D-Index: 191 scientists 33 D-Index: 245 scientists 34 D-Index: 252 scientists 35 D-Index: 244 scientists 36 D-Index: 249 scientists 37 D-Index: 244 scientists 38 D-Index: 254 scientists 39 D-Index: 254 scientists 40 D-Index: 280 scientists 41 D-Index: 274 scientists 42 D-Index: 266 scientists 43 D-Index: 233 scientists 44 D-Index: 248 scientists 45 D-Index: 208 scientists 46 D-Index: 201 scientists 47 D-Index: 213 scientists 48 D-Index: 207 scientists 49 D-Index: 172 scientists 50 D-Index: 209 scientists 51 D-Index: 199 scientists 52 D-Index: 153 scientists 53 D-Index: 169 scientists 54 D-Index: 163 scientists 55 D-Index: 148 scientists 56 D-Index: 120 scientists 57 D-Index: 146 scientists 58 D-Index: 137 scientists 59 D-Index: 140 scientists 60 D-Index: 104 scientists 61 D-Index: 119 scientists 62 D-Index: 118 scientists 63 D-Index: 99 scientists 64 D-Index: 77 scientists 65 D-Index: 100 scientists 66 D-Index: 86 scientists 67 D-Index: 83 scientists 68 D-Index: 75 scientists 69 D-Index: 94 scientists 70 D-Index: 57 scientists 71 D-Index: 68 scientists 72 D-Index: 59 scientists 73 D-Index: 63 scientists 74 D-Index: 66 scientists 75 D-Index: 60 scientists 76 D-Index: 42 scientists 77 D-Index: 49 scientists 78 D-Index: 39 scientists 79 D-Index: 37 scientists 80 D-Index: 43 scientists 81 D-Index: 41 scientists 82 D-Index: 45 scientists 83 D-Index: 34 scientists 84 D-Index: 40 scientists 85 D-Index: 35 scientists 86 D-Index: 55 scientists 87 D-Index: 24 scientists 88 D-Index: 24 scientists 89 D-Index: 30 scientists 90 D-Index: 23 scientists 91 D-Index: 25 scientists 92 D-Index: 27 scientists 93 D-Index: 27 scientists 94 D-Index: 13 scientists 95 D-Index: 23 scientists 96 D-Index: 12 scientists 97 D-Index: 14 scientists 98 D-Index: 19 scientists 99 D-Index: 16 scientists 100 D-Index: 14 scientists 101 D-Index: 5 scientists 102 D-Index: 21 scientists 103 D-Index: 16 scientists 104 D-Index: 10 scientists 105 D-Index: 7 scientists 106 D-Index: 7 scientists 107 D-Index: 7 scientists 108 D-Index: 6 scientists 109 D-Index: 9 scientists 110 D-Index: 11 scientists 111 D-Index: 12 scientists 112 D-Index: 9 scientists 113 D-Index: 7 scientists 114 D-Index: 3 scientists 115 D-Index: 8 scientists 116 D-Index: 5 scientists 117 D-Index: 11 scientists 118 D-Index: 4 scientists 119 D-Index: 2 scientists 120 D-Index: 5 scientists 121+ D-Index: 100 scientists
30 D-Index 121+

This scientist: 37 D-Index — 20th percentile

20% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

The last bar groups every scientist with 121 D-Index or more.

Overview

Scott C. Stark is affiliated with Michigan State University in the United States. Their research primarily focuses on Environmental Science, contributing to 76 publications in this field. Key subfields of study include Global and Planetary Change, Ecology, Nature and Landscape Conservation, Environmental Engineering, and Insect Science.

Their published work covers a range of topics, with notable emphasis on Remote Sensing in Agriculture, Plant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics, Remote Sensing and LiDAR Applications, Fire Effects on Ecosystems, Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management, Forest Ecology and Management, and Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies.

Scott C. Stark has coauthored multiple papers with several frequent collaborators, including:

  • Bruce Nelson
  • Marielle N. Smith
  • Gabriel de Oliveira
  • Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida
  • S. R. Saleska

Their research has been published repeatedly in selected venues, demonstrating a consistent presence in the scientific community. These venues include:

  • Forests
  • Remote Sensing of Environment
  • New Phytologist
  • Nature
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution

Recent publications exemplify the range and focus of their work:

  • Monitoring restored tropical forest diversity and structure through UAV-borne hyperspectral and lidar fusion, 2021, Remote Sensing of Environment
  • The other side of tropical forest drought: do shallow water table regions of Amazonia act as large-scale hydrological refugia from drought?, 2022, New Phytologist
  • Forest fragmentation impacts the seasonality of Amazonian evergreen canopies, 2022, Nature Communications
  • Rapid Recent Deforestation Incursion in a Vulnerable Indigenous Land in the Brazilian Amazon and Fire-Driven Emissions of Fine Particulate Aerosol Pollutants, 2020, Forests
  • Detecting successional changes in tropical forest structure using GatorEye drone-borne lidar, 2020, Biotropica

Best Publications

  • Microbially Mediated Plant Functional Traits

    Maren L. Friesen;Stephanie S. Porter;Scott C. Stark;Eric J. von Wettberg

  • Leaf development and demography explain photosynthetic seasonality in Amazon evergreen forests.

    Jin Wu;Loren P. Albert;Aline P. Lopes;Natalia Restrepo-Coupe;Natalia Restrepo-Coupe

  • Amazon forest carbon dynamics predicted by profiles of canopy leaf area and light environment

    Scott C Stark;Veronika Leitold;Jin L Wu;Maria O Hunter

  • A general integrative model for scaling plant growth, carbon flux, and functional trait spectra

    Brian J. Enquist;Brian J. Enquist;Brian J. Enquist;Andrew J. Kerkhoff;Andrew J. Kerkhoff;Scott C. Stark;Nathan G. Swenson

  • Characterisation of the dilute HCl extraction method for the identification of metal contamination in Antarctic marine sediments.

    I. Snape;R.C. Scouller;S.C. Stark;J. Stark

  • Monitoring restored tropical forest diversity and structure through UAV-borne hyperspectral and lidar fusion

    Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida;Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida;Eben North Broadbent;Matheus Pinheiro Ferreira;Paula Meli

  • Monitoring the structure of forest restoration plantations with a drone-lidar system

    Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida;Eben North Broadbent;Angelica M. Almeyda Zambrano;Benjamin E. Wilkinson

  • Age‐dependent leaf physiology and consequences for crown‐scale carbon uptake during the dry season in an Amazon evergreen forest

    Loren P. Albert;Loren P. Albert;Jin Wu;Jin Wu;Neill Prohaska;Plinio Barbosa de Camargo

  • The effectiveness of lidar remote sensing for monitoring forest cover attributes and landscape restoration

    D.R.A. Almeida;S.C. Stark;R. Chazdon;B.W. Nelson

  • Biological processes dominate seasonality of remotely sensed canopy greenness in an Amazon evergreen forest

    Jin Wu;Jin Wu;Hideki Kobayashi;Scott C. Stark;Ran Meng

  • Optimizing the Remote Detection of Tropical Rainforest Structure with Airborne Lidar: Leaf Area Profile Sensitivity to Pulse Density and Spatial Sampling

    Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida;Scott C. Stark;Gang Shao;Juliana Schietti

  • Seasonal and drought-related changes in leaf area profiles depend on height and light environment in an Amazon forest

    Marielle N. Smith;Marielle N. Smith;Scott C. Stark;Tyeen C. Taylor;Mauricio L. Ferreira

  • Leaf area density from airborne LiDAR: Comparing sensors and resolutions in a temperate broadleaf forest ecosystem

    Aaron G. Kamoske;Kyla M. Dahlin;Scott C. Stark;Shawn P. Serbin

  • Linking canopy leaf area and light environments with tree size distributions to explain Amazon forest demography.

    Scott C. Stark;Scott C. Stark;Brian J. Enquist;Brian J. Enquist;Scott R. Saleska;Veronika Leitold

  • Ecosystem heterogeneity and diversity mitigate Amazon forest resilience to frequent extreme droughts

    Marcos Longo;Marcos Longo;Ryan G Knox;Naomi M Levine;Luciana Ferreira Alves

  • Persistent effects of fragmentation on tropical rainforest canopy structure after 20 yr of isolation.

    Danilo R. A. Almeida;Scott C. Stark;Juliana Schietti;Jose L. C. Camargo

  • A new era in forest restoration monitoring

    Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida;Scott C. Stark;Rubén Valbuena;Eben N. Broadbent

  • Toward accounting for ecoclimate teleconnections: intra- and inter-continental consequences of altered energy balance after vegetation change

    Scott C. Stark;David D. Breshears;Elizabeth S. Garcia;Darin J. Law

  • Contrasting fire damage and fire susceptibility between seasonally flooded forest and upland forest in the Central Amazon using portable profiling LiDAR

    Danilo Roberti Alves de Almeida;Bruce Walker Nelson;Juliana Schietti;Eric Bastos Gorgens

  • Rapid Recent Deforestation Incursion in a Vulnerable Indigenous Land in the Brazilian Amazon and Fire-Driven Emissions of Fine Particulate Aerosol Pollutants

    Gabriel de Oliveira;Jing M. Chen;Guilherme A. V. Mataveli;Michel E. D. Chaves

  • A null model of exotic plant diversity tested with exotic and native species-area relationships.

    Scott C. Stark;Daniel E. Bunker;Walter P. Carson

Frequent Co-Authors

Scott R. Saleska
Scott R. Saleska University of Arizona
Natalia Restrepo-Coupe
Natalia Restrepo-Coupe University of Technology Sydney
Luiz E. O. C. Aragão
Luiz E. O. C. Aragão National Institute for Space Research
Ruben Valbuena
Ruben Valbuena Bangor University
Bruce Walker Nelson
Bruce Walker Nelson Amazon (United States)
David D. Breshears
David D. Breshears University of Arizona
Carlos A. Silva
Carlos A. Silva University of Florida
Juliana Schietti
Juliana Schietti Federal University of Amazonas
Brian J. Enquist
Brian J. Enquist University of Arizona
Plínio Barbosa de Camargo
Plínio Barbosa de Camargo Universidade de São Paulo

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

If you’re exploring a degree in Ecology and Evolution, it’s valuable to consider a wide range of related online degrees and career pathways. Many students pursue further education to expand their skills and career options. Flexible programs, such as those offered by military friendly colleges, help individuals balance coursework with military service or other commitments.

Those interested in social and environmental impacts may find msw online programs especially relevant, as these degrees train graduates to foster community wellbeing, often with ties to environmental justice. Alternatively, an interest in human behavior and environmental psychology can be pursued through accelerated masters psychology programs, which enable quicker entry into impactful careers.

For students aiming to address complex mental health challenges, online clinical mental health counseling programs offer additional opportunities for specialization. Whether your goals are in research, advocacy, or direct service, these online pathways make it easier to customize your education to suit your aspirations within the fields linked to Ecology and Evolution.

Best Scientists Citing Scott C. Stark

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles