Ecuador vs Serbia: Nutrient potash K2O (total) — Agricultural Use, per capita
Ecuador
0.0087 t per person
in 2024
Serbia
0.0092 t per person
in 2024
Ecuador rank
18th
Serbia rank
16th
Nutrient potash K2O (total) — Agricultural Use, per capita over time
- Ecuador
- Serbia
How they compare
Serbia currently reports 0.0092 t per person against 0.0087 t per person in Ecuador, a difference of 0.0005 t per person.
That makes Serbia's figure about 1.1 times Ecuador's.
The two have swapped places 10 times across 19 shared years of data; in 2006 it was Serbia ahead.
Ecuador ranks 18th and Serbia ranks 16th of 173 countries.
Serbia has averaged higher in every one of the 3 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Ecuador | Serbia | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 0.0052 t per person | 0.0075 t per person | 0.0023 t per person | Serbia |
| 2010s | 0.0065 t per person | 0.0068 t per person | 0.0004 t per person | Serbia |
| 2020s | 0.0069 t per person | 0.008 t per person | 0.001 t per person | Serbia |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher nutrient potash k2o (total) — agricultural use, per capita, Ecuador or Serbia?
- Serbia, at 0.0092 t per person against 0.0087 t per person in Ecuador as of 2024.
- What is the difference in nutrient potash k2o (total) — agricultural use, per capita between Ecuador and Serbia?
- 0.0005 t per person, with Serbia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Ecuador and Serbia?
- 19 years are reported by both, from 2006 to 2024.
- How do Ecuador and Serbia rank globally for nutrient potash k2o (total) — agricultural use, per capita?
- Ecuador ranks 18th and Serbia ranks 16th of 173 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Statizoid (derived), published as Nutrient potash K2O (total) — Agricultural Use, per capita. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Nutrient potash K2O (total) — Agricultural Use divided by Population, total, matched on country and year. Neither publisher issues this ratio as a series; it is computed here from both.