Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals

746 indexed citations

Abstract

loading...

About

This paper, published in 1996, received 746 indexed citations. Written by Don E. Wilson, F. Russell Cole, James D. Nichols, Rasanayagam Rudran and Mercedes S. Foster covering the research area of Ecological Modeling and Ecology. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Ecology (558 citations), Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics (216 citations) and Ecological Modeling (213 citations). Published in .

In The Last Decade

doi.org/w68741731 →

Countries where authors are citing Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals

Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals. 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 Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals more than expected).

Fields of papers citing Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals

Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity: Standard Methods for Mammals.

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/w68741731.

Explore hit-papers with similar magnitude of impact

Rankless by CCL
2026