Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests
- Journal
- The Quarterly Review of Biology
In The Last Decade
doi.org/10.1086/409852 →Countries where authors are citing Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests
This map shows the geographic impact of Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests. 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 Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests
This network shows the impact of Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests.
About Optimal Foraging: A Selective Review of Theory and Tests
This paper, published in 1977, received 2.6k indexed citations . Written by Graham H. Pyke, H. Ronald Pulliam and Eric L. Charnov covering the research area of Genetics, Sociology and Political Science and Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Ecology (1.3k citations), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (1.1k citations) and Nature and Landscape Conservation (708 citations). Published in The Quarterly Review of Biology.
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/10.1086/409852.