Macaulay Development Trust

29.8k citations
708 papers ·

Impact in

Papers in

Macaulay Development Trust

674 papers receiving 28.3k citations

Peers

Macaulay Development Trust
Comparison fields: 5 of 223
  • Soil Science 4.6k
  • Environmental Chemistry 3.9k
  • Ecology 6.8k
  • Pollution 2.8k
  • Nature and Landscape Conservation 2.9k
Replace Scottish Enterprise with:
Scottish Enterprise United Kingdom
Watershed United Kingdom
Stockholm Environment Institute United Kingdom
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development United Kingdom
Aberdeenshire Council United Kingdom
Sands United Kingdom
Natural England United Kingdom
Landscape Institute United Kingdom
Environmental Research Institute United Kingdom
WRc (United Kingdom) United Kingdom
Macaulay Development Trust relative to Scottish Enterprise United Kingdom Scottish Enterprise's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×3.7×
Scottish Enterprise · 1×
Citations per year

Countries citing scholars working at Macaulay Development Trust

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at Macaulay Development Trust. 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 papers produced at Macaulay Development Trust with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Macaulay Development Trust more than expected).

Fields of papers published by authors at Macaulay Development Trust

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with Macaulay Development Trust at the time of their publication. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers affiliated with Macaulay Development Trust at the time of their publication.

About Macaulay Development Trust

In recent decades, authors affiliated with Macaulay Development Trust have published 708 papers, which have received a total of 29.8k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 95 papers in Environmental Chemistry, 88 papers in Soil Science, 65 papers in Agronomy and Crop Science, 148 papers in Ecology and 31 papers in Geochemistry and Petrology on the topics of Soil and Water Nutrient Dynamics (70 papers), Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics (65 papers), Peatlands and Wetlands Ecology (49 papers), Clay minerals and soil interactions (48 papers), Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (42 papers), Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology (41 papers), Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies (38 papers) and Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies (32 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Soil Science (4.6k citations), Environmental Chemistry (3.9k citations), Ecology (6.8k citations), Pollution (2.8k citations) and Nature and Landscape Conservation (2.9k citations). Authors at Macaulay Development Trust collaborate with scholars in United Kingdom, United States and Australia and have published in prestigious journals including Plant and Soil, The Science of The Total Environment, Animal Science, Water Air & Soil Pollution and Grass and Forage Science. Some of Macaulay Development Trust's most productive authors include Brajesh K. Singh, Rob J.F. Burton, M. J. Wilson, V. C. Farmer, Allan Walker, Peter Millard, R. L. Mitchell, Ian C. Anderson, E. G. Williams and William M. Saunders.

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.

Explore institutions with similar magnitude of impact