Czechia vs El Salvador: Nutrient balance — Cropland potassium per unit area
Nutrient balance — Cropland potassium per unit area over time
- Czechia
- El Salvador
How they compare
El Salvador currently reports 10.24 kg/ha against 9.29 kg/ha in Czechia, a difference of 0.95 kg/ha.
That makes El Salvador's figure about 1.1 times Czechia's.
The two have swapped places 5 times across 31 shared years of data; in 1993 it was Czechia ahead.
Czechia ranks 86th and El Salvador ranks 83rd of 186 countries.
Across the 4 decades both report, Czechia averaged higher in 3 and El Salvador in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Czechia | El Salvador | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990s | 28.29 kg/ha | 6.97 kg/ha | 21.33 kg/ha | Czechia |
| 2000s | 19.87 kg/ha | 4 kg/ha | 15.87 kg/ha | Czechia |
| 2010s | 15.08 kg/ha | 9.81 kg/ha | 5.27 kg/ha | Czechia |
| 2020s | 8.79 kg/ha | 11.27 kg/ha | 2.48 kg/ha | El Salvador |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher nutrient balance — cropland potassium per unit area, Czechia or El Salvador?
- El Salvador, at 10.24 kg/ha against 9.29 kg/ha in Czechia as of 2023.
- What is the difference in nutrient balance — cropland potassium per unit area between Czechia and El Salvador?
- 0.95 kg/ha, with El Salvador ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Czechia and El Salvador?
- 31 years are reported by both, from 1993 to 2023.
- How do Czechia and El Salvador rank globally for nutrient balance — cropland potassium per unit area?
- Czechia ranks 86th and El Salvador ranks 83rd of 186 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Nutrient balance — Cropland potassium per unit area. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The Cropland Nutrient balance domain contains information on the flows of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from mineral fertilizer, manure applied, atmospheric deposition, crop removal, and biological fixation over cropland and per unit area of cropland. The flows are aggregated to total inputs and total outputs, from which the overall nutrient balance and nutrient use efficiency on cropland are calculated. Statistics are disseminated in units of tonnes and in kg/ha, as appropriate. Nutrient use efficiency is expressed as a fraction (%).