Ecuador vs Sao Tome and Principe: All Animals: Losses from manure treated (N content) … square

Ecuador
39.49 kg per square kilometre
in 2023
Sao Tome and Principe
42.69 kg per square kilometre
in 2023
Ecuador rank
80th
Sao Tome and Principe rank
77th

All Animals: Losses from manure treated (N content) … square over time

  • Ecuador
  • Sao Tome and Principe
0204060196119922023

How they compare

Sao Tome and Principe currently reports 42.69 kg per square kilometre against 39.49 kg per square kilometre in Ecuador, a difference of 3.2 kg per square kilometre.

That makes Sao Tome and Principe's figure about 1.1 times Ecuador's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Ecuador ahead.

Ecuador ranks 80th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 77th of 170 countries.

Ecuador has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Ecuador Sao Tome and Principe Difference Ahead
1960s 23.72 kg per square kilometre 5.41 kg per square kilometre 18.31 kg per square kilometre Ecuador
1970s 33.09 kg per square kilometre 4.1 kg per square kilometre 28.99 kg per square kilometre Ecuador
1980s 34.45 kg per square kilometre 3.24 kg per square kilometre 31.21 kg per square kilometre Ecuador
1990s 42.47 kg per square kilometre 3.3 kg per square kilometre 39.17 kg per square kilometre Ecuador
2000s 47.58 kg per square kilometre 12.19 kg per square kilometre 35.39 kg per square kilometre Ecuador
2010s 47.39 kg per square kilometre 32.81 kg per square kilometre 14.58 kg per square kilometre Ecuador
2020s 40.65 kg per square kilometre 40.18 kg per square kilometre 0.4707 kg per square kilometre Ecuador

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher all animals — losses from manure treated (n content), per square, Ecuador or Sao Tome and Principe?
Sao Tome and Principe, at 42.69 kg per square kilometre against 39.49 kg per square kilometre in Ecuador as of 2023.
What is the difference in all animals — losses from manure treated (n content), per square between Ecuador and Sao Tome and Principe?
3.2 kg per square kilometre, with Sao Tome and Principe ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Sao Tome and Principe?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Ecuador and Sao Tome and Principe rank globally for all animals — losses from manure treated (n content), per square?
Ecuador ranks 80th and Sao Tome and Principe ranks 77th of 170 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as All Animals — Losses from manure treated (N content), per square kilometre. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Ecuador vs Sao Tome and Principe: All Animals — Losses from manure treated (N content), per square. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 12 October 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/all-animals-losses-from-manure-treated-n-content-per-square-kilometre/ecuador/sao-tome-and-principe/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page; please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/all-animals-losses-from-manure-treated-n-content-per-square-kilometre/ecuador/sao-tome-and-principe/">Ecuador vs Sao Tome and Principe: All Animals — Losses from manure treated (N content), per square</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
All Animals — Losses from manure treated (N content), per square kilometre
Unit
kg per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
172 places, 9,878 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

All Animals — Losses from manure treated (N content) divided by Land area (sq. km), matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.