World's Best Scientists 2026 revealed!
Thomas Kirisits

Thomas Kirisits

D-Index & Metrics

Plant Science and Agronomy

D-Index
31
Citations
3740
World Ranking
6199
National Ranking
42

Thomas Kirisits 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 Thomas Kirisits 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: 96 publications — 22nd percentile

22% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Thomas Kirisits 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 Thomas Kirisits 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: 31 D-Index — 7th percentile

7% of scientists in this discipline score the same or lower.

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

Best Publications

  • Biogeographical patterns and determinants of invasion by forest pathogens in Europe

    A. Santini;L. Ghelardini;C. de Pace;M. L. Desprez-Loustau

  • Fungal Associates of European Bark Beetles With Special Emphasis on the Ophiostomatoid Fungi

    T. Kirisits

  • Ash dieback: pathogen spread and diurnal patterns of ascospore dispersal, with special emphasis on Norway.

    V. Timmermann;I. Børja;A. M. Hietala;T. Kirisits

  • Global geographic distribution and host range of Dothistroma species: a comprehensive review

    R. Drenkhan;V. Tomešová-Haataja;S. Fraser;R. E. Bradshaw

  • Chalara fraxinea associated with dieback of narrow‐leafed ash (Fraxinus angustifolia)

    T. Kirisits;M. Matlakova;S. Mottinger-Kroupa;E. Halmschlager

  • Population structure of Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus and its genetic relationship to Hymenoscyphus albidus

    S.B.K. Bengtsson;R. Vasaitis;T. Kirisits;H. Solheim

  • Do mites phoretic on elm bark beetles contribute to the transmission of Dutch elm disease

    John C. Moser;Heino Konrad;Stacy R. Blomquist;Thomas Kirisits

  • Defence reactions of Norway spruce against bark beetles and the associated fungus Ceratocystis polonica in secondary pure and mixed species stands

    Unknown

  • New host and country records of the Dothistroma needle blight pathogens from Europe and Asia

    Irene Barnes;Thomas Kirisits;A. Akulov;D.B. Chhetri

  • Advanced spectroscopy-based phenotyping offers a potential solution to the ash dieback epidemic

    Caterina Villari;Caterina Villari;Arnaud Dowkiw;Rasmus Enderle;Rasmus Enderle;Marjan Ghasemkhani

  • Population structure and diversity of an invasive pine needle pathogen reflects anthropogenic activity.

    Irene Barnes;Michael J. Wingfield;Ignazio Carbone;Thomas Kirisits

  • Phoretic mites and nematode associates of Scolytus multistriatus and Scolytus pygmaeus (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) in Austria

    John C. Moser;Heino Konrad;Thomas Kirisits;Lynn K. Carta

  • Genetic evidence for natural hybridization between the Dutch elm disease pathogens Ophiostoma novo-ulmi ssp. novo-ulmi and O. novo-ulmi ssp. americana

    Heino Konrad;Thomas Kirisits;Markus Riegler;Erhard Halmschlager

  • Yeasts associated with termites: a phenotypic and genotypic characterization and use of coevolution for dating evolutionary radiations in asco- and basidiomycetes

    Hansjörg Prillinger;Robert Messner;Helmut König;Robert Bauer

  • Silvicultural strategies for Fraxinus excelsior in response to dieback caused by Hymenoscyphus fraxineus

    Jens Peter Skovsgaard;Georg Josef Wilhelm;Iben M. Thomsen;Berthold Metzler

  • The current situation of ash dieback caused by Chalara fraxinea in Austria

    Thomas Kirisits;Michaela Matlakova;Susanne Mottinger-Kroupa;Thomas L. Cech

  • Phoretic mites of three bark beetles (Pityokteines spp.) on Silver fir

    Milan Pernek;Boris Hrasovec;Dinka Matosevic;Ivan Pilas

  • Two new Ophiostoma species with Sporothrix anamorphs from Austria and Azerbaijan

    Dilzara N. Aghayeva;Michael J. Wingfield;Z. Wilhelm de Beer;Thomas Kirisits

  • Identity and phylogenetic relationships of ophiostomatoid fungi associated with invasive and native Tetropium species (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in Atlantic Canada.

    Karin Jacobs;Keith A Seifert;Ken J Harrison;Thomas Kirisits

  • Phylogenetic relationships between the European and Asian eight spined larch bark beetle populations (Coleoptera, Scolytidae) inferred from DNA sequences and fungal associates

    Unknown

  • First report of the ash dieback pathogen Chalara fraxinea on Fraxinus excelsior in Austria

    E. Halmschlager;T. Kirisits

  • Hymenoscyphus albidus is not associated with an anamorphic stage and displays slower growth than Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus on agar media

    T. Kirisits;L. Dämpfle;K. Kräutler

  • Ash dieback associated with Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus in forest nurseries in Austria

    Thomas Kirisits;Peter Kritsch;Katharina Krauml;utler

  • Ash dieback caused by Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus in a seed plantation of Fraxinus excelsior in Austria

    Thomas Kirisits;Christian Freinschlag

Frequent Co-Authors

Michael J. Wingfield
Michael J. Wingfield University of Pretoria
Brenda D. Wingfield
Brenda D. Wingfield University of Pretoria
Irene Barnes
Irene Barnes University of Pretoria
Christian Stauffer
Christian Stauffer BOKU University
Pierluigi Bonello
Pierluigi Bonello The Ohio State University
Jan Stenlid
Jan Stenlid Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Luis E. Rodriguez-Saona
Luis E. Rodriguez-Saona The Ohio State University
Z. Wilhelm de Beer
Z. Wilhelm de Beer University of Pretoria
Keith A. Seifert
Keith A. Seifert Carleton University
Andy F. S. Taylor
Andy F. S. Taylor University of Aberdeen

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 Thomas Kirisits

Trending Scientists