Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities
Impact in
- Ecology 288
Classified as
- Journal
- University of Chicago Press eBooks
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w2962688 →Countries where authors are citing Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities
This map shows the geographic impact of Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities
This network shows the impact of Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities.
About Metacommunities: Spatial Dynamics and Ecological Communities
This paper, published in 2005, received 528 indexed citations . Written by Mark J. Hovenden, Marcel Holyoak, Mathew A. Leibold and Robert D. Holt covering the research area of Nature and Landscape Conservation and Ecology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Nature and Landscape Conservation (299 citations), Ecology (288 citations), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (212 citations), Ecological Modeling (100 citations) and Global and Planetary Change (80 citations). Published in University of Chicago Press eBooks.
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w2962688.