I was addressing two separate points you made. I thought the "---" would make that clear.
> This is alarmingly false.
I'm sorry but I can't take your comment more seriously than a paper published in a respected journal that has been cited 1,099 times. It provides 4 sources to back up the claim I posted.
In scholarship on land use history this is pretty well accepted.
---
As for the specific chinampas yields, such high yields shouldn't be surprising when you have 4-7 harvest per year and require no periods of being fallow.
The UN's FAO provides more specific breakdowns on yields on page 22 of their report
> It is clear that the yield per crop varies depending on the species and
variety sown. However, in the case of the chinampas, yields are
between 10 to 15 tonnes/hectare. An average of 12.5 tons/ha
That's not 80 tons per hectare as you stated.
> I'm sorry but I can't take your comment more seriously than a paper published in a respected journal that has been cited 1,099 times
You took the quote out of context, it's about rice agriculture in South East Asia, not Xochimilco. I check the citations and you obviously didn’t.
You are blatantly making things up here and trying to back your bullshit claims with papers that you are misrepresenting.
> This is alarmingly false.
I'm sorry but I can't take your comment more seriously than a paper published in a respected journal that has been cited 1,099 times. It provides 4 sources to back up the claim I posted.
In scholarship on land use history this is pretty well accepted.
---
As for the specific chinampas yields, such high yields shouldn't be surprising when you have 4-7 harvest per year and require no periods of being fallow.
The UN's FAO provides more specific breakdowns on yields on page 22 of their report
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/cd8...
You're have to download it but the designation also has more specific figures
https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/ba8d198e-a18b-4541-b94b-...