Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory
- Authors
- Gary A. Polis
- Journal
- The American Naturalist
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1086/285208 →Countries where authors are citing Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory
This map shows the geographic impact of Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory. 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 Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory
This network shows the impact of Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory.
About Complex Trophic Interactions in Deserts: An Empirical Critique of Food-Web Theory
This paper, published in 1991, received 744 indexed citations . Written by Gary A. Polis covering the research area of Genetics, Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics and Sociology and Political Science. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (401 citations), Ecology (357 citations) and Nature and Landscape Conservation (245 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/10.1086/285208.