Aimee Hurt

589 total citations
11 papers, 400 citations indexed

About

Aimee Hurt is a scholar working on Ecology, Genetics and Molecular Biology. According to data from OpenAlex, Aimee Hurt has authored 11 papers receiving a total of 400 indexed citations (citations by other indexed papers that have themselves been cited), including 9 papers in Ecology, 8 papers in Genetics and 3 papers in Molecular Biology. Recurrent topics in Aimee Hurt's work include Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (8 papers), Identification and Quantification in Food (3 papers) and Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies (3 papers). Aimee Hurt is often cited by papers focused on Wildlife Ecology and Conservation (8 papers), Identification and Quantification in Food (3 papers) and Environmental DNA in Biodiversity Studies (3 papers). Aimee Hurt collaborates with scholars based in United States, United Kingdom and Australia. Aimee Hurt's co-authors include Megan Parker, Brice Adams, Katherine Ralls, Jesús E. Maldonado, Deborah A. Smith, Sarah E. Reed, Wayne M. Getz, Allison Bidlack, Barbara J. Davenport and Christopher M. Austin and has published in prestigious journals such as SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología, Molecular Ecology and Journal of Wildlife Management.

In The Last Decade

Aimee Hurt

11 papers receiving 375 citations

Peers — A (Enhanced Table)

Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late) cites · hero ref

Name h Career Trend Papers Cites
Aimee Hurt United States 8 302 218 69 61 40 11 400
Brice Adams United States 7 226 0.7× 170 0.8× 36 0.5× 46 0.8× 48 1.2× 12 279
Paula MacKay United States 7 472 1.6× 150 0.7× 166 2.4× 85 1.4× 51 1.3× 9 529
Márcio Leite de Oliveira Brazil 11 184 0.6× 101 0.5× 51 0.7× 37 0.6× 31 0.8× 40 313
Junco Nagata Japan 12 345 1.1× 269 1.2× 26 0.4× 89 1.5× 30 0.8× 26 432
Anthony Caragiulo United States 11 320 1.1× 153 0.7× 57 0.8× 35 0.6× 19 0.5× 19 380
Zs. Biró Italy 6 335 1.1× 299 1.4× 40 0.6× 25 0.4× 28 0.7× 6 457
Laura Tensen South Africa 8 186 0.6× 125 0.6× 36 0.5× 24 0.4× 35 0.9× 23 265
Angela R. Glatston Netherlands 9 129 0.4× 97 0.4× 27 0.4× 25 0.4× 21 0.5× 15 284
John Chih Mun Sha China 12 261 0.9× 62 0.3× 33 0.5× 109 1.8× 14 0.3× 25 528
Christen L. Williams United States 13 372 1.2× 296 1.4× 24 0.3× 76 1.2× 44 1.1× 19 507

Countries citing papers authored by Aimee Hurt

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Aimee Hurt's research. 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 Aimee Hurt with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Aimee Hurt more than expected).

Fields of papers citing papers by Aimee Hurt

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers produced by Aimee Hurt. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Aimee Hurt. The network helps show where Aimee Hurt may publish in the future.

Co-authorship network of co-authors of Aimee Hurt

This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Aimee Hurt. A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Aimee Hurt based on the total number of citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together. Node borders signify the number of papers an author published with Aimee Hurt. Aimee Hurt is excluded from the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.

All Works

11 of 11 papers shown
1.
2.
Bryce, Caleb M., Michael S. Davis, Matthew E. Gompper, et al.. (2021). Biology’s best friend: Bridging disciplinary gaps to advance canine science. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 8 indexed citations
3.
Kretser, Heidi E., et al.. (2016). SCAT-DETECTION DOGS SURVEY LOW DENSITY MOOSE IN NEW YORK. SHILAP Revista de lepidopterología. 7 indexed citations
4.
Beckmann, Jon P., et al.. (2015). Using Detection Dogs and Rspf Models to Assess Habitat Suitability for Bears in Greater Yellowstone. Western North American Naturalist. 75(4). 396–405. 9 indexed citations
5.
Duggan, Jennifer, et al.. (2011). Comparing detection dog and livetrapping surveys for a cryptic rodent. Journal of Wildlife Management. 75(5). 1209–1217. 32 indexed citations
6.
Reed, Sarah E., Allison Bidlack, Aimee Hurt, & Wayne M. Getz. (2011). Detection distance and environmental factors in conservation detection dog surveys. Journal of Wildlife Management. 75(1). 243–251. 82 indexed citations
7.
Smith, Deborah A., Katherine Ralls, Aimee Hurt, et al.. (2006). Assessing reliability of microsatellite genotypes from kit fox faecal samples using genetic and GIS analyses. Molecular Ecology. 15(2). 387–406. 55 indexed citations
8.
Shivik, John A., et al.. (2006). Efficacy of Scent Dogs in Detecting Black-Footed Ferrets at a Reintroduction Site in South Dakota. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34(5). 1435–1439. 31 indexed citations
9.
Burridge, Christopher P., et al.. (2004). Stepping stone gene flow in an estuarine‐dwelling sparid from south‐east Australia. Journal of Fish Biology. 64(4). 805–819. 31 indexed citations
10.
Smith, Deborah A., Katherine Ralls, Aimee Hurt, et al.. (2003). Detection and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Animal Conservation. 6(4). 339–346. 140 indexed citations
11.
Hurt, Aimee, Nicholas P. Murphy, Jawahar G. Patil, & Christopher M. Austin. (2001). Molecular Genetic Evidence for a New Species of Bream of the Genus Acanthopagrus Peters (Perciformes: Sparidae). Asian Fisheries Science. 14(4). 3 indexed citations

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 authors with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026