World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!

D-Index & Metrics

Plant Science and Agronomy

D-Index
50
Citations
10609
World Ranking
2109
National Ranking
167

Scott N. Johnson 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 N. Johnson 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: 180 publications — 71st percentile

71% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Scott N. Johnson 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 N. Johnson 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: 50 D-Index — 68th percentile

68% 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

Scott N. Johnson mostly deals with Botany, Herbivore, Insect, Ecology and Aphid. His study in the field of Electroantennography is also linked to topics like RNA interference and Anopheles gambiae S. His biological study spans a wide range of topics, including Host, Cucurbitacin, Otiorhynchus sulcatus and Agronomy.

His Insect study combines topics in areas such as Larva, Western corn rootworm and Weevil. When carried out as part of a general Ecology research project, his work on Ecosystem, Plant tolerance to herbivory and Climate change is frequently linked to work in Context and Rhizosphere, therefore connecting diverse disciplines of study. His work carried out in the field of Aphid brings together such families of science as Nutrient and Homoptera, Aphididae.

His most cited work include:

  • Control of coleopteran insect pests through RNA interference (1186 citations)
  • Integrating pests and pathogens into the climate change/food security debate (331 citations)
  • A Method of Controlling Corn Rootworm Feeding Using a Bacillus thuringiensis Protein Expressed in Transgenic Maize (224 citations)

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

Scott N. Johnson focuses on Herbivore, Agronomy, Ecology, Botany and Aphid. His Herbivore research incorporates elements of Trophic level, Insect, Biomass and Resistance. His research integrates issues of PEST analysis, Acyrthosiphon pisum, Soil water and Carbon dioxide in his study of Agronomy.

In the subject of general Ecology, his work in Ecosystem, Climate change, Invertebrate and Global warming is often linked to Root, thereby combining diverse domains of study. Many of his research projects under Botany are closely connected to Context with Context, tying the diverse disciplines of science together. His studies deal with areas such as Crop, Homoptera, Rhopalosiphum padi, Aphididae and Phloem as well as Aphid.

He most often published in these fields:

  • Herbivore (48.54%)
  • Agronomy (40.35%)
  • Ecology (33.92%)

What were the highlights of his more recent work (between 2018-2021)?

  • Herbivore (48.54%)
  • Agronomy (40.35%)
  • Ecology (33.92%)

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

Scott N. Johnson mainly investigates Herbivore, Agronomy, Ecology, Insect and Botany. Scott N. Johnson has researched Herbivore in several fields, including Helicoverpa armigera, Resistance and Abiotic component. In the field of Agronomy, his study on Shoot overlaps with subjects such as Rhizobia.

His Encyrtidae study, which is part of a larger body of work in Ecology, is frequently linked to Identity, bridging the gap between disciplines. His Insect research includes themes of Defence response and Horticulture. His work on Cell wall, Specific leaf area and Trichome as part of his general Botany study is frequently connected to Plant root and Root, thereby bridging the divide between different branches of science.

Between 2018 and 2021, his most popular works were:

  • The fate of carbon in a mature forest under carbon dioxide enrichment (58 citations)
  • The Role of Silicon in Antiherbivore Phytohormonal Signalling (29 citations)
  • Simulated Herbivory: The Key to Disentangling Plant Defence Responses. (20 citations)

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

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Ecosystem

His primary scientific interests are in Herbivore, Botany, Agronomy, Jasmonic acid and Abiotic component. His Herbivore study is associated with Ecology. Scott N. Johnson studies Insect which is a part of Ecology.

His work on Poaceae as part of general Botany research is frequently linked to Brachypodium distachyon, bridging the gap between disciplines. His Agronomy research incorporates themes from Carbon sequestration, Primary production, Soil respiration and Carbon sink. His Abiotic component study combines topics from a wide range of disciplines, such as PEST analysis, Lepidoptera genitalia and Noctuidae.

Best Publications

  • Control of coleopteran insect pests through RNA interference

    James A Baum;Thierry Bogaert;William Clinton;Gregory R Heck

  • Integrating pests and pathogens into the climate change/food security debate

    Peter J. Gregory;Scott N. Johnson;Adrian C. Newton;John S. I. Ingram

  • The fate of carbon in a mature forest under carbon dioxide enrichment

    Mingkai Jiang;Belinda E. Medlyn;John E. Drake;John E. Drake;Remko A. Duursma

  • A Method of Controlling Corn Rootworm Feeding Using a Bacillus thuringiensis Protein Expressed in Transgenic Maize

    Ty Vaughn;Tracey Cavato;Gurdip Brar;Timothy Coombe

  • Implications of climate change for diseases, crop yields and food security

    Adrian C. Newton;Scott N. Johnson;Peter J. Gregory

  • Chemically-mediated host-plant location and selection by root-feeding insects

    Scott N. Johnson;Peter J. Gregory

  • Aboveground-belowground herbivore interactions: a meta-analysis.

    Scott N. Johnson;Katherine E. Clark;Katherine E. Clark;Susan E. Hartley;T. Hefin Jones

  • Does mother know best? The preference–performance hypothesis and parent–offspring conflict in aboveground–belowground herbivore life cycles

    Katherine E. Clark;Katherine E. Clark;Susan E. Hartley;Scott N. Johnson

  • Roots under attack: contrasting plant responses to below- and aboveground insect herbivory.

    Scott N. Johnson;Matthias Erb;Susan E. Hartley

  • Foraging in the dark - chemically mediated host plant location by belowground insect herbivores.

    Scott N. Johnson;Uffe N. Nielsen

  • Root-feeding insects and their interactions with organisms in the rhizosphere

    Scott N Johnson;Sergio Rasmann

  • Plant-mediated effects of soil invertebrates and summer drought on above-ground multitrophic interactions

    Scott N. Johnson;Joanna T. Staley;Fraser A. L. McLeod;Susan E. Hartley

  • Simulated Herbivory: The Key to Disentangling Plant Defence Responses.

    Jamie M. Waterman;Christopher I. Cazzonelli;Susan E. Hartley;Scott N. Johnson

  • The Role of Silicon in Antiherbivore Phytohormonal Signalling

    Casey R Hall;Jamie M Waterman;Rebecca K Vandegeer;Suean Elaine Hartley

  • Trade-Offs between Silicon and Phenolic Defenses may Explain Enhanced Performance of Root Herbivores on Phenolic-Rich Plants

    Adam Frew;Jeff R. Powell;Nader Sallam;Peter G. Allsopp

  • Electrophysiological investigation of larval water and potential oviposition chemo-attractants for Anopheles gambiae s.s.

    Alison Blackwell;Scott N Johnson

  • Elevated carbon dioxide and warming impact silicon and phenolic-based defences differently in native and exotic grasses.

    Scott N. Johnson;Susan E. Hartley

  • Microbial impacts on plant-herbivore interactions: the indirect effects of a birch pathogen on a birch aphid.

    Scott N. Johnson;Scott N. Johnson;Angela E. Douglas;Stephen Woodward;Susan E. Hartley

  • Silicon deposition on guard cells increases stomatal sensitivity as mediated by K+ efflux and consequently reduces stomatal conductance

    Rebecca K. Vandegeer;Chenchen Zhao;Ximena Cibils‐Stewart;Richard Wuhrer

  • Mycorrhizal fungi enhance nutrient uptake but disarm defences in plant roots, promoting plant-parasitic nematode populations

    Adam Frew;Adam Frew;Jeff R. Powell;Gaétan Glauser;Alison E. Bennett

  • The ‘mother knows best’ principle: should soil insects be included in the preference–performance debate?

    Scott N. Johnson;A. Nicholas E. Birch;Peter J. Gregory;Philip J. Murray

  • Reappraising the role of plant nutrients as mediators of interactions between root- and foliar-feeding insects

    Scott N. Johnson;Cathy Hawes;Alison J. Karley

  • Tracking larval insect movement within soil using high resolution X-ray microtomography

    Scott N. Johnson;Derek B. Read;Peter J. Gregory

  • Raspberry viruses manipulate the behaviour of their insect vectors

    Lindsay S. McMenemy;Lindsay S. McMenemy;Sue E. Hartley;Stuart A. MacFarlane;Alison J. Karley

  • Root Feeders: An Ecosystem Perspective

    Scott N Johnson;Philip J Murray

Frequent Co-Authors

Susan E. Hartley
Susan E. Hartley University of Sheffield
Ben D. Moore
Ben D. Moore Western Sydney University
Markus Riegler
Markus Riegler Western Sydney University
Peter J. Gregory
Peter J. Gregory University of Reading
Jeff R. Powell
Jeff R. Powell Western Sydney University
T. Hefin Jones
T. Hefin Jones Cardiff University
Rosemary S. Hails
Rosemary S. Hails Mansfield University
Adam J. Vanbergen
Adam J. Vanbergen INRAE : Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement
Raúl Ochoa-Hueso
Raúl Ochoa-Hueso University of Cádiz
Sally A. Power
Sally A. Power Western Sydney University

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 N. Johnson

Trending Scientists