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 40 3932 3679 34 32 145 6197

Teemu Hölttä publications per year

The chart shows the history of publications by Teemu Hölttä between 2002 and 2025, highlighting the no. of papers published in each year and offering an overview of the publication velocity of this scholar. Teemu Hölttä published across 24 years, from 2002 to 2025, averaging 7 papers a year. Output peaked at 15 publications in 2021. 14 of the 168 publications appeared in the last two years.

No. of publications
5 10 15
Bar chart. Horizontal axis: year, 2002 to 2025. Vertical axis: number of publications, 0 to 15. Peak 15 publications in 2021. 2002: 2 publications 2003: 1 publication 2004: 0 publications 2005: 5 publications 2006: 3 publications 2007: 2 publications 2008: 3 publications 2009: 5 publications 2010: 5 publications 2011: 4 publications 2012: 6 publications 2013: 14 publications 2014: 7 publications 2015: 8 publications 2016: 12 publications 2017: 9 publications 2018: 12 publications 2019: 12 publications 2020: 11 publications 2021: 15 publications 2022: 8 publications 2023: 10 publications 2024: 7 publications 2025: 7 publications
2002 2025

168 publications in total across all disciplines

View publications per year as a table
Teemu Hölttä: publications per year, 2002 to 2025
Year Publications
2002 2
2003 1
2004 0
2005 5
2006 3
2007 2
2008 3
2009 5
2010 5
2011 4
2012 6
2013 14
2014 7
2015 8
2016 12
2017 9
2018 12
2019 12
2020 11
2021 15
2022 8
2023 10
2024 7
2025 7
Total 168
Download as CSV

Teemu Hölttä 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 Teemu Hölttä 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, 141–145 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: 145 publications — 55th percentile

55% 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
111–115 255
116–120 253
121–125 233
126–130 219
131–135 201
136–140 194
141–145 176 145
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

Teemu Hölttä 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 Teemu Hölttä 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, 40 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: 40 D-Index — 42nd percentile

42% 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 40
41 230
42 228
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

Overview

What is he best known for?

The fields of study he is best known for:

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Photosynthesis

The scientist’s investigation covers issues in Xylem, Botany, Phloem, Phloem transport and Transpiration. The concepts of his Xylem study are interwoven with issues in Ecology and Stomatal conductance. His research integrates issues of Cavitation, Mechanics and Capillary action in his study of Botany.

As a member of one scientific family, Teemu Hölttä mostly works in the field of Phloem, focusing on Biophysics and, on occasion, Cambium. The Phloem transport study combines topics in areas such as Photosynthesis, Soil gas and Turgor pressure. In his research, Woody plant is intimately related to Agronomy, which falls under the overarching field of Photosynthesis.

His most cited work include:

  • Evaluating theories of drought‐induced vegetation mortality using a multimodel–experiment framework (269 citations)
  • Modeling xylem and phloem water flows in trees according to cohesion theory and Münch hypothesis (165 citations)
  • Linking phloem function to structure: Analysis with a coupled xylem–phloem transport model (152 citations)

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

Teemu Hölttä mainly focuses on Xylem, Botany, Scots pine, Phloem and Transpiration. His Xylem research is multidisciplinary, relying on both Hydraulic conductivity and Cavitation. In the subject of general Botany, his work in Photosynthesis is often linked to Tree structure, thereby combining diverse domains of study.

His Phloem research integrates issues from Osmotic pressure and Bark. The Transpiration study which covers Environmental chemistry that intersects with Water potential. Teemu Hölttä combines subjects such as Biological system, Sieve tube element and Turgor pressure with his study of Phloem transport.

He most often published in these fields:

  • Xylem (51.22%)
  • Botany (40.65%)
  • Scots pine (21.95%)

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

  • Xylem (51.22%)
  • Scots pine (21.95%)
  • Stomatal conductance (11.38%)

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

His primary areas of study are Xylem, Scots pine, Stomatal conductance, Horticulture and Atmospheric sciences. His Xylem study is focused on Botany in general. The study incorporates disciplines such as Soil water, Monoterpene and Agronomy in addition to Scots pine.

His Stomatal conductance research is multidisciplinary, incorporating elements of Biophysics and Canopy. His work on Turgor pressure as part of general Horticulture research is frequently linked to Freezing point, Osmometer and Osmotic concentration, bridging the gap between disciplines. While the research belongs to areas of Atmospheric sciences, Teemu Hölttä spends his time largely on the problem of Tree health, intersecting his research to questions surrounding Remote sensing and Water stress.

Between 2018 and 2021, his most popular works were:

  • Drought impacts on tree phloem: from cell-level responses to ecological significance. (19 citations)
  • Leaf carbon and water status control stomatal and nonstomatal limitations of photosynthesis in trees (12 citations)
  • Wood allocation trade-offs between fiber wall, fiber lumen, and axial parenchyma drive drought resistance in neotropical trees. (8 citations)

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

  • Ecology
  • Botany
  • Photosynthesis

Xylem, Stomatal conductance, Scots pine, Agronomy and Ecology are his primary areas of study. His study in Xylem is interdisciplinary in nature, drawing from both Drought resistance and Hydraulic conductivity. His research in Stomatal conductance intersects with topics in Leaf water and Pinus .

His work deals with themes such as Soil water, Monoterpene and Transpiration, which intersect with Scots pine. As part of one scientific family, Teemu Hölttä deals mainly with the area of Agronomy, narrowing it down to issues related to the Canopy conductance, and often Cunninghamia and Acacia mangium. His work on Canopy, Climate change and Biogeochemical cycle as part of general Ecology study is frequently linked to Cellular level and Water scarcity, bridging the gap between disciplines.

Best Publications

  • Evaluating theories of drought‐induced vegetation mortality using a multimodel–experiment framework

    Nate G. McDowell;Rosie A. Fisher;Chonggang Xu;J. C. Domec;J. C. Domec

  • Modeling xylem and phloem water flows in trees according to cohesion theory and Münch hypothesis

    T. Hölttä;T. Vesala;S. Sevanto;S. Sevanto;M. Perämäki

  • The significance of phloem transport for the speed with which canopy photosynthesis and belowground respiration are linked

    Maurizio Mencuccini;Teemu Hölttä

  • Linking phloem function to structure: Analysis with a coupled xylem–phloem transport model

    T. Holtta;Maurizio Mencuccini;E. Nikinmaa

  • Assimilate transport in phloem sets conditions for leaf gas exchange.

    Eero Nikinmaa;Teemu Hölttä;Pertti Hari;Pasi Kolari

  • Effects of the hydraulic coupling between xylem and phloem on diurnal phloem diameter variation

    Sanna Sevanto;Teemu Hölttä;N. Michele Holbrook

  • Capacitive effect of cavitation in xylem conduits: results from a dynamic model.

    Teemu Hölttä;Herve Cochard;Eero Nikinmaa;Maurizio Mencuccini

  • Global transpiration data from sap flow measurements: the SAPFLUXNET database

    Rafael Poyatos;Víctor Granda;Víctor Flo;Mark A. Adams;Mark A. Adams

  • Coordination of physiological traits involved in drought-induced mortality of woody plants

    Maurizio Mencuccini;Francesco Minunno;Yann Salmon;Jordi Martínez‐Vilalta

  • Hydraulic functioning of tree stems--fusing ray anatomy, radial transfer and capacitance.

    Sebastian Pfautsch;Teemu Hölttä;Maurizio Mencuccini

  • New insights into the covariation of stomatal, mesophyll and hydraulic conductances from optimization models incorporating nonstomatal limitations to photosynthesis.

    Roderick Dewar;Aleksanteri Mauranen;Annikki Mäkelä;Teemu Hölttä

  • Concurrent measurements of change in the bark and xylem diameters of trees reveal a phloem‐generated turgor signal

    Maurizio Mencuccini;Teemu Hölttä;Sanna Sevanto;Eero Nikinmaa

  • Leaf carbon and water status control stomatal and nonstomatal limitations of photosynthesis in trees

    Yann Salmon;Anna Lintunen;Alexia Dayet;Tommy Chan

  • New Insights into the Mechanisms of Water-Stress-Induced Cavitation in Conifers

    Hervé Cochard;Teemu Hölttä;Stéphane Herbette;Sylvain Delzon

  • A physiological model of softwood cambial growth.

    Teemu Hölttä;Teemu Hölttä;Harri Mäkinen;Pekka Nöjd;Annikki Mäkelä

  • Sanio's laws revisited. Size-dependent changes in the xylem architecture of trees.

    Maurizio Mencuccini;Teemu Hölttä;Giai Petit;Federico Magnani

  • The effect of artificially induced drought on radial increment and wood properties of Norway spruce.

    Tuula Jyske;Teemu Hölttä;Harri Mäkinen;Pekka Nöjd

  • Comparison of phloem and xylem hydraulic architecture in Picea abies stems

    Tuula Jyske;Teemu Hölttä

  • Fluxes of carbon dioxide and water vapour over Scots pine forest and clearing

    Üllar Rannik;Nuria Altimir;Jukka Raittila;Tanja Suni

  • Wood allocation trade-offs between fiber wall, fiber lumen, and axial parenchyma drive drought resistance in neotropical trees.

    Thomas A.J. Janssen;Teemu Hölttä;Katrin Fleischer;Kim Naudts

  • Separating water‐potential induced swelling and shrinking from measured radial stem variations reveals a cambial growth and osmotic concentration signal

    Tommy Chan;Teemu Hölttä;Frank Berninger;Harri Mäkinen

  • The effects of sap ionic composition on xylem vulnerability to cavitation

    Hervé Cochard;Stéphane Herbette;Stéphane Herbette;Encarni Hernández;Teemu Hölttä;Teemu Hölttä

Frequent Co-Authors

Timo Vesala
Timo Vesala University of Helsinki
Eero Nikinmaa
Eero Nikinmaa University of Helsinki
Maurizio Mencuccini
Maurizio Mencuccini Centre for Research on Ecology and Forestry Applications
Jaana Bäck
Jaana Bäck University of Helsinki
Sanna Sevanto
Sanna Sevanto Los Alamos National Laboratory
Pasi Kolari
Pasi Kolari University of Helsinki
Annikki Mäkelä
Annikki Mäkelä University of Helsinki
Pertti Hari
Pertti Hari University of Helsinki
Hervé Cochard
Hervé Cochard INRAE : Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement
Jordi Martínez-Vilalta
Jordi Martínez-Vilalta Autonomous University of Barcelona

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 Teemu Hölttä

Trending Scientists

Recently Published Articles