Brazil vs Ecuador: Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)

Brazil
0.5226 1000 USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Ecuador
0.5134 1000 USD per square kilometre
in 2023
Brazil rank
105th
Ecuador rank
107th

Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016) over time

  • Brazil
  • Ecuador
0.40.60.811.2196119922023

How they compare

Brazil currently reports 0.5226 1000 USD per square kilometre against 0.5134 1000 USD per square kilometre in Ecuador, a difference of 0.0092 1000 USD per square kilometre.

The two have swapped places 15 times across 63 shared years of data; in 1961 it was Ecuador ahead.

Brazil ranks 105th and Ecuador ranks 107th of 139 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Brazil Ecuador Difference Ahead
1960s 0.4493 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.7258 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.2765 1000 USD per square kilometre Ecuador
1970s 0.4968 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.9216 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.4248 1000 USD per square kilometre Ecuador
1980s 0.4415 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.6502 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.2087 1000 USD per square kilometre Ecuador
1990s 0.4493 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.69 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.2407 1000 USD per square kilometre Ecuador
2000s 0.5176 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.5555 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0379 1000 USD per square kilometre Ecuador
2010s 0.5212 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.585 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0637 1000 USD per square kilometre Ecuador
2020s 0.5013 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.5395 1000 USD per square kilometre 0.0382 1000 USD per square kilometre Ecuador

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016), Brazil or Ecuador?
Brazil, at 0.5226 1000 USD per square kilometre against 0.5134 1000 USD per square kilometre in Ecuador as of 2023.
What is the difference in roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016) between Brazil and Ecuador?
0.0092 1000 USD per square kilometre, with Brazil ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Brazil and Ecuador?
63 years are reported by both, from 1961 to 2023.
How do Brazil and Ecuador rank globally for roots and tubers, total — gross production value (constant 2014-2016)?
Brazil ranks 105th and Ecuador ranks 107th of 139 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Statizoid (derived), published as Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), 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

Brazil vs Ecuador: Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016). Statizoid, drawing on Statizoid (derived). Retrieved 23 September 2026, from https://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/roots-and-tubers-total-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square/brazil/ecuador/

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://agriculture.statizoid.com/compare/roots-and-tubers-total-gross-production-value-constant-2014-2016-thousand-us-per-square/brazil/ecuador/">Brazil vs Ecuador: Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016)</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$), per square kilometre
Unit
1000 USD per square kilometre
Source
Statizoid (derived)
Licence
Derived by Statizoid from the sources named on the page
Coverage
140 places, 7,839 data points, 1961–2023
Last refreshed

Roots and Tubers, Total — Gross Production Value (constant 2014-2016 thousand US$) 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.