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 500
-
- Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies 734
- Fish Ecology and Management Studies 443
- Top scholars
- Monya BakerBrian D. RichterVivien MarxPeter KareivaJ. G. SkellamJ. Philip GrimeRobert I. McDonaldCarmen Revenga
- Journals
- Nature Reviews Cardiology (381 papers)Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (327 papers)Nature (307 papers)Nature Reviews Endocrinology (305 papers)Nature Methods (283 papers)
- Partner nations
- United StatesUnited KingdomAustralia
In The Last Decade
The Nature Conservancy
7.3k papers receiving 235.7k citations
Peers
Comparison fields: 5 of 247
- Ecological Modeling 19.4k
- Nature and Landscape Conservation 54.8k
- Ecology 103.9k
- Global and Planetary Change 86.2k
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law 20.7k
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 8.9k papers, which have received a total of 248.0k indexed citations . Scholars at this organization have produced 500 papers in Ecological Modeling, 1.4k papers in Nature and Landscape Conservation, 2.5k papers in Ecology, 1.9k papers in Global and Planetary Change and 469 papers in Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law on the topics of Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies (734 papers), Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (613 papers), Rangeland and Wildlife Management (538 papers), Species Distribution and Climate Change (500 papers), Fish Ecology and Management Studies (443 papers), Fire effects on ecosystems (433 papers), Marine and fisheries research (403 papers) and Coral and Marine Ecosystems Studies (400 papers). Their work is cited by papers focused on Ecological Modeling (19.4k citations), Nature and Landscape Conservation (54.8k citations), Ecology (103.9k citations), Global and Planetary Change (86.2k citations) and Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law (20.7k citations). Authors at The Nature Conservancy collaborate with scholars in United States, United Kingdom and Australia and have published in prestigious journals including Nature Reviews Cardiology, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, Nature, Nature Reviews Endocrinology and Nature Methods. Some of The Nature Conservancy's most productive authors include Monya Baker, Brian D. Richter, Vivien Marx, Peter Kareiva, J. G. Skellam, J. Philip Grime, Robert I. McDonald, Carmen Revenga, Joseph Fargione and David P. Braun.
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.