Annals of Library and Information Studies

130
Vol. 57, June 2010, pp.130-139
ANN. LIB. INF. STU., JUNE 2010

Scientometric profile of global forest fungal research

Kirti Joshi1, Avinash Kshitij2 and K.C. Garg3

1
Fellow Scientist, 2Scientist B and 3Scientist G
National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies,Pusa Gate, Dr. K.S. Krishnan Marg, New Delhi, 110012

Examines the R&D efforts in the field of forest mycology (study of fungi) with a primary focus on the global trends of
publication output and its citation impact for the papers published during 1987-2008. The results indicate that number of
publications have increased significantly especially during 2004 -2008. A total of 3313 publications scattered over 619 journal
titles originating from 50 countries and 839 institutions indicates that USA tops the list in the publication output, while
Sweden does in the citation impact. China leads in terms of highest rate of annual growth of published papers.

Introduction Objectives of the study

Forests and forestry issues have generated a lot of
interest during the past two decades at national as well
as international level1 and recently a shift has been
observed in focus from timber production to other
aspects of forestry 2. The issues now deal with
environment and ecology management. Ecosystem
management is the new paradigm for managing the
forests. Fungi performing essential ecological functions
are, therefore, important components of forest
ecosystem management3. To properly understand forest
ecosystem, scientists’ world over have taken up research
to understand something about the biology and ecology
of forest fungi. Many studies have been taken up related
to the effect of fungi on the succession of plantation in
forests4,5. NASA has investigated how fungi may affect
forest types and regrowth6. A wide range of mycological
(fungal) research activities are being pursued in various
institutions and universities globally. However, no study
exists dealing with the scientometric profile of global
forest fungal research except ranking of forestry
journals7 and university or country specific studies8,9.
The present communication aims to quantify the global
output in the field of forest fungal research, map the
research trends through cross country and inter-
institutional comparison and examines the citation impact
of the research output as seen by the pattern of the
citations.
• To examine the pattern of publication output in
thefield of forest mycology during 1987-2008;
• To study the geographical distribution of the
research output and also study the transformative
activity profile of most prolific countries;
• To identify the pattern of citations of the
researchoutput and identification of highly cited
papers;
• To examine the citation impact of different
countries using different bibliometric indicators;
and
• To identify prolific institutions involved in forest
fungal research and to study their citation impact.
Methodology
Source of data for the present study was Science Citation
Index-Expanded (SCI-E). The keywords used for search
were ‘forest’ and ‘fungi’ in the topic field for the period
1987 to 2008. The search strategy yielded 3350 records
that dealt with forest fungi research. The bibliographic
details for each record included document type, title of
the paper, authors, and their affiliation, name of the journal
with its place of publication. From these downloaded
records, 35 records were removed that were published
 JOSHI, KSHITIJ & GARG: SCIENTOMETRIC PROFILE OF GLOBAL FOREST FUNGAL RESEARCH
Fig 1— Pattern of publications output
as editorials, notes, news items, corrections, letters,
meeting abstracts, reprints and corrections. Out of the
remaining set of 3315, two records did not contain
sufficient information and hence were deleted from the
study. Thus, the total number of papers taken up for
analysis was 3313.
The method usually followed in scientometric studies is
the first author approach where only first author is taken
into account (straight counts). This method sometimes
leads to a bias10,11 as it under represents the co-authors,
distorts and introduces error in the results. Another
method of choice is by allocating credits to the authors
by giving either equal credits or on the basis of their
ranking orders12,13. One more option is counting all
authors for analysis. In the present study, complete
counting has been done so as to get the total number of
participating countries and institutes. This has led to
inflation in the total number of papers. It is well-known
fact that whole counting inflates the national shares as
the number of papers adds up to more than 100 per
cent14 as apparent from many case studies15.
Analysis
Pattern of publication output
A total of 3313 publications scattered over 619 journal
titles originating from 50 countries were published on
the topic of forest fungi during 1987-2008. English was
the most preferred language of these communications,
131
followed by Russian and German. The number of articles
published in English, Russian and German were 3198 (96.6
%), 31 (0.93 %), 20 (0.6 %) respectively. The remaining
64 papers were published in other seven languages.
Appendix 1 lists 16 top journals with their country of
publication and impact factor, where research results on
forest fungi was published. These 16 journals published
1797 (54%) papers. The pattern of output during the
period 1987-2008 is shown in Figure1 which indicates
that the publication output is rising and reached its peak
in the year 2006 with 346 papers. The trajectory shows
frequent troughs in the graph with a dip in the publication
output during 1992, 1996, 1999, 2002 and 2007.
Geographical distribution of publication output
During the period under study, a total of 99 countries
were involved in forest fungi research. Of these, the top
20 countries contributed to approximately 89%
publications and the remaining 79 countries contributed
only11% of the total research papers. Distribution of the
research output for different countries in three blocks
i.e. 1987-1990, 1991-1999 and 2000-2008 (Table1)
indicates that only 15 countries produced 33 papers in
the first four years. The main contributors among these
countries were the USA, Russia, and France. However,
in the second block (1991-1999), many more countries
joined the research effort, raising the number of countries
to 66 and the publication output to 1009 almost 30 times
more than what it was in the first block. In the last block
 132 ANN. LIB. INF. STU., JUNE 2010

Table 1— Output in forest fungal research in different blocks

1987-1990 1991-1999 2000-2008 1987-2008

Country No. of Papers No. of Papers TAI No. of Papers TAI Change in TAI No. of Papers

USA 6 225 99 623 101 (+)2 854

Sweden 79 99 220 101 (+)2 299
Germany 2 61 89 196 104 (+)15 259
Canada 99 154 143 81 (-)73 242
France 4 50 106 123 96 (-)10 177
Australia 2 56 123 113 91 (-)32 171
Finland 34 83 121 108 (+)25 155
England 1 55 134 98 88 (-)46 154
Japan 1 13 40 107 122 (+)82 121
Netherlands 1 42 136 73 87 (-)49 116
China 5 20 90 131 (+)111 95
Spain 1 32 123 65 91 (-)32 98
Brazil 11 44 84 122 (+)78 95
Italy 22 95 65 103 (+)8 87
Russia 5 16 75 59 102 (+)27 80
Scotland 21 98 60 102 (+)4 81
Poland 2 17 81 60 105 (+)24 79
New Zealand 10 46 71 121 (+)75 81
Mexico 16 89 52 105 (+)16 68
India 1 19 107 47 97 (-)10 67
Others 7 126 113 286 94 (-)19 419
Total 33 1009 2756 3798*
*The actual output (3313) differs from the total output in Table 1 as collaborative papers have been counted more than once.

(2000-2008), the number of countries increased further
to 93 and the output to 2756, more than one and a half
times as much as the output in the second block. This is
in conformity with the FAO, 1997 report16 which states
that in 1980’s it were the developed countries who
initiated the studies related to forestry, though later on
many more countries joined the effort.
In order to study the change in output in the last two
blocks among the prolific countries, use of Transformative
Activity Index (TAI) suggested by Guan and Ma17 has
been made. The methodology is similar to what has been
used by Kumar and Garg18 and Garg et.al.19 in their
studies on computer science research in India and China
and global malaria vaccine research respectively. First
block was left for calculating TAI as 9 countries did not
publish any paper in the first block.
Mathematically, TAI = [(Ci/Co)/(Wi/Wo)] x100
Where Ci is the number of publications of the specific
country in the ith block, C o is the total number of
publications of the specific country during the period of
study, Wi is the number of publications of all countries in
the ith block and Wo is the number of publications of all
the countries during the period of the study.
A glance at TAI values for different countries indicates
that the publication activity has decreased considerably
for Canada, the Netherlands, England and Australia. In
 JOSHI, KSHITIJ & GARG: SCIENTOMETRIC PROFILE OF GLOBAL FOREST FUNGAL RESEARCH 133

Fig. 2 — Change in the values of the Transformative Activity Index

(TAI) for different countries

the case of Canada, the decrease is the highest and is

relatively high as compared to the Netherlands, Australia, Table 2— Distribution of citations
England and Spain. For other countries there is an
No. of citations No. of papers Total Citation
increase in the publication activity as reflected by the
values of the TAI. The increase is highest for China 0 655 0
followed by Japan, Brazil and New Zealand. Fig. 2
graphically represents the change in the pattern of TAI. 1 288 288

2 219 438
Citation analysis of research output
3-5 494 1940
According to Garfield20 there is no commonly available
fully satisfactory “measure of quality” of research. 6-10 491 3809
However, citation rates reflect the impact of published
11-15 304 3903
work on the international community. Citation count of
cited authors or author groups is an indication of influence 16-20 224 4028
of individuals and of groups. The citation rate of a paper
may be considered a partial measure of its “impact” 21-25 156 3561
(rather than of its quality or importance), where impact
26-50 321 11250
is defined as “its actual influence on surrounding research
activity at a given time” 21. 51-75 80 4853

Table 2 presents the distribution of citation data. It 76-100 38 3281

indicates that 3313 papers received 43643 citations during
101-200 38 4832
the period 1987-2008. The average rate of citation was
~ 13. Analysis of the citation data indicates that, of the 201-300 3 740
3313 published papers, 655 (~20 %) papers did not
receive any citation and the remaining 80 % received >300 2 720
one or more citations. Of the cited papers, ~30 % papers
were cited between 1 and 5 times and remaining 70% 3313 43643
134 ANN. LIB. INF. STU., JUNE 2010
were cited more than five times. The number of papers
those received more than 100 citations were 43. The
number of papers being cited more than the average is
1024. Of the 655 non-cited papers, 81 were published
prior to 2000 and the remaining 574 during 2000-2008.
Appendix 2 lists highly cited papers that received 125 or
more citations. Of the 26 highly cited papers, 11 were
collaborative papers among different countries or
institutes. On the basis of first author of the paper, 7
each were from Sweden and USA, 2 each from
Germany and Canada, Finland and Scotland and one each
from England, the Netherlands, Australia and France.
The majority of the highly cited papers came under the
category of articles (19), followed by reviews (5) and
one proceedings paper. Among the journals Soil Biology
and Biochemistry had the maximum number of highly
cited papers (5) followed by four each in Ecology and
New Phytologist and two papers each in Canadian
Journal of Botany and Advances in Ecological
Research.
Prolific countries and their citation impact
Countries that have published 1% or more papers have
been considered as prolific. To compare the performance
based on the scientific activity of countries and institutions
two relative indicators of impact are adopted. These are
Citation per Paper (CPP) and Relative Citation Impact
(RCI).
Citation per Paper (CPP) is a relative indicator computed
as the average number of citations per publication. This
indicator has been widely used in bibliometric analysis
as it normalizes the large disparity in volumes of literature
published among prolific publishing nations and other
smaller nations for a meaningful comparison of research
influence.
Relative Citation Impact (RCI) was developed by
Institute of Scientific information (now Thomson Reuters,
USA) to calculate Science and Engineering indicators
and has been used by Kumari22 to examine the impact of
different countries in the field of synthetic organic
chemistry research. RCI measures both the influence
and visibility of a nation’s research in global perspective.
Relative Citation Impact (RCI) = A Country’s share of
world citations /Country’s share of world publications.
RCI =1 indicates that country’s citation rate is equal to
world citation rate; RCI >1 indicates that country’s
citation rate is higher than world’s citation rate and RCI
<1 indicates that country’s citation rate is less than
world’s citation rate.
Table 3 lists 20 most prolific countries with their total
number of publications, total citations, CPP and RCI.
The average value of CPP is 13. The value of CPP is
highest for Sweden and England. Other countries having
higher CPP than average are the Netherlands, Scotland,
Finland, Canada, Germany, France, USA and Australia.
For rest of the countries listed in Table 3, the value of
CPP is less than average. The standing of different
countries judged from the values of RCI indicates that
10 countries namely Sweden, England, Netherlands,
Scotland, USA, Germany, Canada, Finland, France and
Australia had RCI >1 and for remaining 10 countries
RCI was <1. Countries for which the value of CPP is
higher than average compared to others had higher
Relative Citation Impact as well.
Prolific institutions and their citation impact
Total publication output during 1987-2008 came from 839
institutions spread among 99 countries. Table 4 lists the
20 most prolific institutes. Of the total output, these 20
institutes contributed 957 publications (29%) and are
scattered in 11 countries. Of these, five institutes from
USA contributed 32% publications, three institutes each
from Sweden and Finland contributed 30% and 12%
publications respectively. Two institutes from UK and
one from France contributed 6%. The remaining six
institutions one each from Canada, Japan and Russia
contributed ~ 4% each and Newzealand, China and
Germany contributed 3% each. The impact indicators
for these institutions indicates that the value of CPP for
15 institutions is more than average and for the remaining
5 institutions is less than average. The highest value of
CPP as well as RCI is for University of Sheffield (UK),
followed by Saint Louis University (Sweden) and
University of California (USA).
Conclusion
The area of forestry research is a vast subject with more
than 100,000 publications emanating for the period under
study with forest fungi research constituting about 3.3
% of total forestry research output elucidating the
importance of fungal research in forestry. Despite the
fact that USA ranks tenth23 globally in total forest area,
but in terms of research publications output it ranks first.
This proves that presence of forests is not the only criteria
 JOSHI, KSHITIJ & GARG: SCIENTOMETRIC PROFILE OF GLOBAL FOREST FUNGAL RESEARCH 135

Table 3 — Prolific countries and their citation impact

TNP World’s share (%) TNC World’s Share (%) RCI CPP

USA 854 22.5 13679 26.0 1.2 16

Sweden 299 7.9 7070 13.4 1.7 24
Germany 259 6.8 4204 8.0 1.2 16
Canada 242 6.4 3961 7.5 1.2 16
France 177 4.7 2629 5.0 1.1 15
Australia 171 4.5 2324 4.4 1.0 14
Finland 155 4.1 2578 4.9 1.2 17
England 154 4.1 3484 6.6 1.6 23
Japan 121 3.2 878 1.7 0.5 7
Netherlands 116 3.1 2349 4.5 1.5 20
China 95 2.5 481 0.9 0.4 5
Spain 98 2.6 910 1.7 0.7 9
Brazil 95 2.5 567 1.1 0.4 6
Italy 87 2.3 552 1.0 0.5 6
Russia 80 2.1 230 0.4 0.2 3
Scotland 81 2.1 1469 2.8 1.3 18
Poland 79 2.1 307 0.6 0.3 4
New Zealand 81 2.1 595 1.1 0.5 7
Mexico 68 1.8 498 0.9 0.5 7
India 67 1.8 365 0.7 0.4 5
Others 419 11.0 3511 6.7 0.6 8
Total 3798 100 52641 100

TNP: Total Number of Papers; TNC: Total Number of Citations; RCI: Relative Citation Impact; CPP: Citations per
Paper

in taking up forest fungal research. A steep rise in the
output in third block (especially in the last four years)
indicates the increased interest in the research activity
in this field. The synergy between forests and inhabiting
fungi is now being considered as a valued component of
the sustainable forests contributing to the ecological
functioning and management of the health of forests.
USA, Sweden, Germany, and Canada each produced
more than 5% of the total world output and the remaining
countries produced less than 5%. This is in agreement
with a recent study on forestry conducted by Canadian
Forest Service24 for the period 1991-2006. As regards
quality of papers based on CPP and most cited papers,
Sweden stands out followed by England, the Netherlands,
Scotland and Finland. China exhibited the highest growth
rate in publication output as judged from TAI. The Major
changes in policy in China have been normally considered
at the base of this success25,26,27,28. Among the institutes,
Swedish University of Agricultural Science is the zenith
of all institutes with highest world share of publications
in forest fungal research. As regards CPP, University of
Sheffield (UK) followed by Saint Louis University and
University of California Berkeley are at the top.
Collaboration pattern indicates that inter-country
partnering through joint publications has increased
immensely. The level and approach of research has
intensified collaboration with both developed and
developing countries forging links and alliances.
136 ANN. LIB. INF. STU., JUNE 2010

Table 4 — Most prolific institutions and the impact of their output

Institute TNP World’s TNC World’ RCI CPP

share % s share %
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Sweden) 141 4.3 2907 6.7 1.6 21
United States Forest Service (USA) 94 2.8 1742 4.0 1.4 19
Oregon State University (USA) 92 2.8 1636 3.7 1.3 18
University of California, Berkeley (USA) 63 1.9 2132 4.9 2.6 34
Lund University (Sweden) 58 1.8 1690 3.9 2.2 29
National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA) (France) 57 1.7 1032 2.4 1.4 18
University of Helsinki (Finland) 50 1.5 730 1.7 1.1 15
Finnish Forest Research Institute (Finland) 39 1.2 988 2.3 1.9 25
University of British Columbia (Canada) 35 1.1 562 1.3 1.2 16
Kyoto University (Japan) 34 1.0 320 0.7 0.7 9
Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia) 34 1.0 50 0.1 0.1 1
University of Sheffield (UK) 33 1.0 1435 3.3 3.3 43
US Department of Agriculture (USA) 32 1.0 270 0.6 0.6 8
Landcare Research (New Zealand) 30 0.9 221 0.5 0.6 7
University of Hong Kong (China) 28 0.8 277 0.6 0.8 10
Saint Louis University (Sweden) 28 0.8 999 2.3 2.7 36
University of Wisconsin (USA) 28 0.8 445 1.0 1.2 16
University of Jyväskylä (Finland) 28 0.8 483 1.1 1.3 17
University of Aberdeen (UK) 27 0.8 376 0.9 1.1 14
University of Göttingen (Germany) 26 0.8 626 1.4 1.8 24
Others 2470 74.6 27535 63.1
Total 3427 46456

Acknowledgement 4. Perry D A, Amaranthus M P, Borchers J G, Borchers S L and

Authors are greatly indebted to Dr. Parthasarthi Banerjee,
Director, National Institute of Science Technology and
Development Studies (NISTADS) for his support and
the motivation in writing this paper.
References
1. Holmgren P and Persson R, Evolution and prospects of global
forest assessments. Unasylva, Forest assessment and
monitoring, 53 (210) (2003) FAO.
2. Kaennel D M and Nobis M, Issue identification in forest
research: visualizing and tracking trends in publications. New
approaches in knowledge management, International conference.
(Freiburg, Germany 25-27 October 2006).
3. Pilz D and Molina R (Eds.), Managing forest ecosystems to
conserve fungus diversity and sustain wild mushroom harvests,
Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-371. Portland, OR: (U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Research Station) (1996) 104 p.
Brainerd R E, Bootstrapping in ecosystems, BioScience, 39
(4) (1989) 230–237.
5. Horton T R and Bruns T D, Multiple-host fungi are the most
frequent and abundant ectomycorrhizal types in a mixed stand
of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and bishop pine (Pinus
muricata), New Phytol, 139 (2) (1998) 331–339.
6. Byrd K B, Parker V T, Vogler D R and Cullings K W, The
influence of clear-cutting on ectomycorrhizal fungus diversity
in a lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) stand, Yellowstone National
Park, Wyoming, and Gallatin National Forest, Montana, Can.
J. Bot, 78 (2) (2000) 149–156.
7. Vanclay J K, Ranking forestry journals using the h-index,
Journal of Informetrics, 2(4) (2008) 326-334.
8. Kelsey P and Diamond T, Establishing a core list of Journals
for forestry: A citation analysis from faculty at southern
universities, College and research libraries, 64 (5) (2003) 357-
377.
9. Campbell D and Bertrand F, Bibliometrics as a performance
measurement tool for the evaluation of research, Annual CES
conference, (2009). www.evaluationcanada.ca/.../
20090601_campbell_david_bertrand_frederic.pdf.
 JOSHI, KSHITIJ & GARG: SCIENTOMETRIC PROFILE OF GLOBAL FOREST FUNGAL RESEARCH
10. Garfield E, Citation indexing-Its theory and application in
Science, Technology and Humanities (John Willey and Sons,
New York) 1979. 20.
11. Cole J R and Cole S, Social stratification in Science, The 21.
university of Chicago press, Chicago & London (1973).
12. Uzun A, Productivity ratings of institutions based on publication
in scientometrics, informetrics and bibliometrics 1981-2000, 22.
Scientometrics, 53 (3) (2002) 297-307.
13. Treuba F J and Guerrero H, A robust formula to credit authors
for their publications, Scientometrics, 60 (2) (2004) 181-204. 23.
14. Glänzel W, Janssens F and Thijs B, A comparative analysis of
publication activity and citation impact based on the core
24.
literature in bioinformatics, Scientometrics, 79 (1) (2009) 109-
25.
129.
15. Larsen P O, The state of the art in publication counting,
Scientometrics, 77 (2) (2008) 235-251.
16. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), State of the World’s
26.
forests (1997). http://www.fao.org/docrep/W4345E/
W4345E00.htm.
17. Guan J and Nan Ma, A comparative study of research
performance in computer science, Scientometrics, 61 (3) (2004)
27.
339-359.
18. Kumar S and Garg K C, Scientometrics of computer science
research in India and China, Scientometrics, 64 (2) (2005) 121-
28.
132.
19. Garg K C, Kumar S, Madhavi Y & Mala Bahl, Bibliometrics of
137
global malaria vaccine research, Health information and Libraries
journal, 26 (1) (2009) 22-31.
Garfield E. Op.cit.
King J, A review of bibliometric and other science indicators
and their role in research evaluation, Journal of Information
Science, 13 (5) (1987) 261-276.
Kumari G L, Synthetic organic chemistry research: Analysis
by scientometric indicators, Scientometrics, 80 (3) (2009) 559-
570.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Global Forest
Resources Assessment 2005, (2006). www.fao.org/forestry/site/
32038/en.
Campbell and Bertrand. op. cit.
Albers H, Rozelle S and Guo L, China’s forests under economic
reform: timber supplies, environmental protection and rural
resource access, Contemporary Economic Policy, 16 (1) (1998)
22-33.
Rozelle S, Huang J, Husain S A and Zazueta A, From
afforestation to poverty alleviation and natural forest
management: An evaluation of China’s forest development and
World Bank assistance. World Bank, Washington, D. C (2000).
Hyde W F, Belcher B and Xu J, China’s forests. Global lessons
from market reforms, (Resources for the Future Press,
Washington, D C) 2003, 1-21.
Wang S, Van Kooten G C and Wilson B, Mosaic of reform:
forest policy in post-1978 China, Forest Policy and Economics,
6 (1) (2004) 71-83.
138 ANN. LIB. INF. STU., JUNE 2010

APPENDIX 1
Journals No. of papers Impact Factor 2007

1 Soil Biology & Biochemistry, England 183 2.58

2 New Phytologist, England 157 5.25

3 Mycorrhiza, USA 137 2.07

4 Forest Ecology and Management, Netherlands 129 1.58

5 Mycological Research, USA & England 99 1.86

6 Canadian Journal of Botany, Canada 91 0.98

7 Plant and Soil, Netherlands 91 1.82

8 Mycologia, USA 76 1.81

9 Canadian Journal Of Forest Research, Canada 75 1.51

10 Applied Soil Ecology, Netherlands 60 1.81

11 Biology And Fertility Of Soils, USA 53 1.19

12 Oecologia, USA 52 2.97

13 Mycotaxon, USA 50 0.54

14 FEMS Microbiology Ecology, Netherlands & England 42 3.04

15 Ecology, USA 40 4.82

16 Applied and Environmental Microbiology, USA 39 4.00

APPENDIX-2
Sl. No. Authors, Institute, Bibliographical Details Citations Collaborating institute

1 Hogberg, P; Nordgren, A; Buchmann, N. et.al. Saint Louis Max Planck Institute of Biogeochemistry
University, Nature (2001), Vol. 411, Pg. 789-792 397 and University of Sheffield
2 Frostegard, A; Baath, E; Tunlid, A., Lund University Soil Biology &
Biochemistry (1993) Vol. 25, Pg. 723 - 730 323
3 Gardes, M And Bruns, T.D., University of Colorado Canadian
Journal Of Botany (1996), Vol. 74, Pg. 1572 - 1583 285 University of California
4 Horton, T.R. And Bruns, T.D., Yunnan University Molecular
Ecology(2001), Vol. 10 , Pg. 1855 - 1871 241 Chinese Academy of Sciences
5 Garbaye, J., National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA),
New Phytologist(1994), Vol. 128, Pg. 197 - 210 214
6 Eissenstat, D.M. And Yanai, R.D., Pennsylvania State University,
Advances In Ecological Research (1997), Vol. 27, Pg. 1 - 60 188 Syracuse University
7 Schimel, J.P. and Bennett, J., University of California,
Ecology(2004), Vol. 85, Pg. 591 - 602 173 North Carolina State University
8 Baath, E; Frostegard, A et. al. Finnish Forest Research Institute,
Soil Biology & Biochemistry(1995), Vol. 27, Pg. 229 - 240 170 Lund University
9 Pennanen, T; Frostegard, A et al.; Finnish Forest Research Institute,
 JOSHI, KSHITIJ & GARG: SCIENTOMETRIC PROFILE OF GLOBAL FOREST FUNGAL RESEARCH 139

Applied And Environmental Microbiology (1996) Vol. 62, Pg. 420 - 428 166 Lund University
10 Visser, S., University of Calgary, New Phytologist(1995)
Vol. 129, Pg. 389 - 401 165
11 Carreiro, M.M.; Sinsabaugh, R.L.; Repert, D.A.; Parkhurst, D.F., University of Toledo and
Fordham University, Ecology(2000) Vol. 81, Pg. 2359 - 2365 148 Indiana State University
12 Frostegard, A; Tunlid, A. and Baath, E., Lund University, Soil Biology &
Biochemistry(1996) Vol. 28, Pg. 55 - 63 143
13 Fliessbach, A; Martens, R And Reber, H.H., Bundesforsch Sanstalt
Landwirtschaft, Soil Biology & Biochemistry(1994)
Vol. 26, Pg. 1201 - 1205 143
14 Suberkropp, K And Chauvet, E., University of Alabama, CNRS (National Center for
Ecology(1995) Vol. 76, Pg. 1433 - 1445 141 Scientific Research), France
15 Arnolds, E., Agricultural University Wijster, Agriculture Ecosystems
& Environment (1991) Vol. 35, Pg. 209 - 244 139
16 Jonsell, M.; Weslien, J. and Ehnstrom, B., Swedish University
Agriculture Sciences, Biodiversity And Conservation(1998)
Vol. 7, Pg. 749 - 764 138
17 Grayston, S.J.; Griffith, G.S.; Mawdsley, J.L.; Campbell, C.D.;
Bardgett, R.D., Macaulay Land Use Research Institute,
Soil Biology & Biochemistry(2001) Vol. 33, Pg. 533 - 551
18 Finlay, R.D.; Frostegard, A; Sonnerfeldt, A.M., University
of Lund, New Phytologist(1992) Vol. 120, Pg. 105 - 115 137
19 Bader, P; Jansson, S and Jonsson, B.G., Umea University,
Biological Conservation(1995) Vol. 72, Pg. 355 - 362 136
20 Handley, LL.; Scrimgeour, C.M., Scottish Crop Research Institute,
Advances In Ecological Research, Vol 27(1997) Vol. 27, Pg. 133 - 212 135
21 Baldock, J.A.; Oades, J.M.; Nelson, P.N. et. al. CSIRO, Australian
Journal Of Soil Research(1997), Vol. 35, Pg. 1061 - 1083 131 University of Adelaide
22 Berg, B., University of Bayreuth, Forest Ecology And
Management (2000) Vol. 133, Pg. 13 – 22 130
23 Bending, G.D. And Read, D.J., University of Sheffield New
Phytologist (1995) Vol. 130, Pg. 401 – 409 127
24 Dahlberg, A; Jonsson, L And Nylund, J.E., Swedish University Agriculture
Sciences, Canadian Journal Of Botany (1997) Vol. 75, Pg. 1323 – 1335 126
25 Klironomos, J. N., University Guelph, Ecology(2003)
Vol. 84, Pg. 2292 – 2301 125
26 Feng, M.G., Poprawski, T.J., Khachatourians, G.G., Cornell University,
Biocontrol Science and Technology(1994) 4, Pg. 3-34. 125 University of Saskatchewan, Canada