Greenland vs Mexico: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre

Greenland
0.9679 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Mexico
0.9494 metric tons per square kilometre
in 2023
Greenland rank
90th
Mexico rank
91st

Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre over time

  • Greenland
  • Mexico
0.20.40.60.81196119922023

How they compare

Greenland currently reports 0.9679 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.9494 metric tons per square kilometre in Mexico, a difference of 0.0185 metric tons per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 8 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Greenland ahead.

Greenland ranks 90th and Mexico ranks 91st of 216 countries.

Across the 7 decades both report, Greenland averaged higher in 6 and Mexico in 1.

Head to head by decade

Decade Greenland Mexico Difference Ahead
1960s 0.1644 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1468 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0175 metric tons per square kilometre Greenland
1970s 0.4226 metric tons per square kilometre 0.2904 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1322 metric tons per square kilometre Greenland
1980s 0.5381 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6912 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1531 metric tons per square kilometre Mexico
1990s 0.713 metric tons per square kilometre 0.6849 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0281 metric tons per square kilometre Greenland
2000s 0.9243 metric tons per square kilometre 0.7376 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1868 metric tons per square kilometre Greenland
2010s 0.9449 metric tons per square kilometre 0.811 metric tons per square kilometre 0.1339 metric tons per square kilometre Greenland
2020s 0.9284 metric tons per square kilometre 0.874 metric tons per square kilometre 0.0544 metric tons per square kilometre Greenland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre, Greenland or Mexico?
Greenland, at 0.9679 metric tons per square kilometre against 0.9494 metric tons per square kilometre in Mexico as of 2023.
What is the difference in capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre between Greenland and Mexico?
0.0185 metric tons per square kilometre, with Greenland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Greenland and Mexico?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Greenland and Mexico rank globally for capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre?
Greenland ranks 90th and Mexico ranks 91st of 216 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Capture fisheries production (metric tons), 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

Greenland vs Mexico: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre. Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 22 September 2026, from https://environment.statizoid.com/compare/capture-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/greenland/mexico/

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/capture-fisheries-production-metric-tons-per-square-kilometre/greenland/mexico/">Greenland vs Mexico: Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Capture fisheries production (metric tons), per square kilometre
Unit
metric tons per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
264 places, 15,328 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Capture fisheries production (metric tons) 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.