The Nature Conservancy
Impact in
- Ecological Modeling top 0.5%
- Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Nature and Landscape Conservation top 0.5%
- Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
- Fish Ecology and Management Studies
Papers in
-
- Species Distribution and Climate Change 515
-
- Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies 755
- Fish Ecology and Management Studies 444
- Top scholars
- Monya BakerBrian D. RichterPeter KareivaVivien MarxJ. Gordon SkellamJ. Philip GrimeRobert Ian McDonaldCarmen Revenga
- Journals
- Nature Methods (478 papers)Nature Reviews Cardiology (389 papers)Nature Reviews Endocrinology (302 papers)Nature (271 papers)Nature reviews. Immunology (226 papers)
- Partner nations
- United StatesAustraliaUnited Kingdom
In The Last Decade
The Nature Conservancy
7.1k papers receiving 273.5k citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 248
- Ecological Modeling 22.6k
- Nature and Landscape Conservation 63.7k
- Global and Planetary Change 103.1k
- Ecology 120.8k
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law 25.2k
Countries citing scholars working at The Nature Conservancy
This map shows the geographic impact of research produced by authors working at The Nature Conservancy. 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 The Nature Conservancy with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites The Nature Conservancy more than expected).
Fields of papers published by authors at The Nature Conservancy
This network shows the impact of papers affiliated with The Nature Conservancy 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 The Nature Conservancy at the time of their publication.
About The Nature Conservancy
In recent decades, authors affiliated with The Nature Conservancy have published 8.7k papers, which have received a total of 289.3k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 515 papers in Ecological Modeling, 1.4k papers in Nature and Landscape Conservation, 2.5k papers in Ecology, 2.0k papers in Global and Planetary Change and 513 papers in Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law on the topics of Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies (755 papers), Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (613 papers), Rangeland and Wildlife Management (550 papers), Species Distribution and Climate Change (515 papers), Fire effects on ecosystems (449 papers), Fish Ecology and Management Studies (444 papers), Marine and fisheries research (426 papers) and Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies (418 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Ecological Modeling (22.6k citations), Nature and Landscape Conservation (63.7k citations), Global and Planetary Change (103.1k citations), Ecology (120.8k citations) and Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (25.2k citations). Authors at The Nature Conservancy collaborate with scholars in United States, Australia and United Kingdom and have published in prestigious journals including Nature Methods, Nature Reviews Cardiology, Nature Reviews Endocrinology, Nature and Nature reviews. Immunology. Some of The Nature Conservancy's most productive authors include Monya Baker, Brian D. Richter, Peter Kareiva, Vivien Marx, J. Gordon Skellam, J. Philip Grime, Robert Ian McDonald, Carmen Revenga, Joseph Fargione and Benjamin S. Halpern.
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.