Comment by culi

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

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-...