Sri Lanka vs Zimbabwe: Nutrient balance — Cropland potassium
Nutrient balance — Cropland potassium over time
- Sri Lanka
- Zimbabwe
How they compare
Sri Lanka currently reports -18,289 t against -18,924 t in Zimbabwe, a difference of 635 t.
The two have swapped places 10 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Sri Lanka ahead.
Sri Lanka ranks 162nd and Zimbabwe ranks 163rd of 201 countries.
Sri Lanka has averaged higher in every one of the 7 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Sri Lanka | Zimbabwe | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 20,720 t | 8,607 t | 12,113 t | Sri Lanka |
| 1970s | 14,452 t | 12,459 t | 1,993 t | Sri Lanka |
| 1980s | 29,924 t | 5,618 t | 24,307 t | Sri Lanka |
| 1990s | 18,995 t | 8,560 t | 10,435 t | Sri Lanka |
| 2000s | 11,743 t | -5,389 t | 17,132 t | Sri Lanka |
| 2010s | 2,762 t | -1,315 t | 4,078 t | Sri Lanka |
| 2020s | 2,627 t | -15,801 t | 18,428 t | Sri Lanka |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher nutrient balance — cropland potassium, Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe?
- Sri Lanka, at -18,289 t against -18,924 t in Zimbabwe as of 2023.
- What is the difference in nutrient balance — cropland potassium between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe?
- 635 t, with Sri Lanka ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe?
- 63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
- How do Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe rank globally for nutrient balance — cropland potassium?
- Sri Lanka ranks 162nd and Zimbabwe ranks 163rd of 201 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, published as Nutrient balance — Cropland potassium. 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 (%).