Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten
- Authors
- Ken N. PaigeThomas G. Whitham
- Journal
- The American Naturalist
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1086/284645 →Countries where authors are citing Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten
This map shows the geographic impact of Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten. 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 Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten
This network shows the impact of Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten.
About Overcompensation in Response to Mammalian Herbivory: The Advantage of Being Eaten
This paper, published in 1987, received 533 indexed citations . Written by Ken N. Paige and Thomas G. Whitham covering the research area of Nature and Landscape Conservation and Ecology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Nature and Landscape Conservation (337 citations), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (295 citations) and Plant Science (253 citations). Published in The American Naturalist.
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/10.1086/284645.