About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the California population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of California across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2024, the population of California was 39.43 million, a 0.59% increase year-by-year from 2023. Previously, in 2023, California population was 39.2 million, an increase of 0.14% compared to a population of 39.14 million in 2022. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2024, population of California increased by 5.44 million. In this period, the peak population was 39.52 million in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2024

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2024)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the California is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in California population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for California Population by Year. You can refer the same here

In 2023, the resident population of California was ***** million. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, with ***** million people in 2022. This makes it the most populous state in the U.S. Californian demographics Along with an increase in population, California’s gross domestic product (GDP) has also been increasing, from *** trillion U.S. dollars in 2000 to **** trillion U.S. dollars in 2023. In the same time period, the per-capita personal income has almost doubled, from ****** U.S. dollars in 2000 to ****** U.S. dollars in 2022. In 2023, the majority of California’s resident population was Hispanic or Latino, although the number of white residents followed as a close second, with Asian residents making up the third-largest demographic in the state. The dark side of the Golden State While California is one of the most well-known states in the U.S., is home to Silicon Valley, and one of the states where personal income has been increasing over the past 20 years, not everyone in California is so lucky: In 2023, the poverty rate in California was about ** percent, and the state had the fifth-highest rate of homelessness in the country during that same year, with an estimated ** homeless people per 10,000 of the population.

Graph and download economic data for Resident Population in California (CAPOP) from 1900 to 2024 about residents, CA, population, and USA.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the California population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of California across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2022, the population of California was 4,484, a 0.55% decrease year-by-year from 2021. Previously, in 2021, California population was 4,509, an increase of 0.29% compared to a population of 4,496 in 2020. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2022, population of California increased by 421. In this period, the peak population was 4,509 in the year 2021. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2022

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2022)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the California is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in California population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for California Population by Year. You can refer the same here

The Earth′s climate is warming, especially in the mid- and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) breeds and haul-outs on islands and the mainland of Baja California, Mexico, and California, U.S.A. At the beginning of the 21st century, numbers of elephant seals in California are increasing, but the status of Baja California populations is unknown, and some data suggest they may be decreasing. We hypothesize that the elephant seal population of Baja California is experiencing a decline because the animals are not migrating as far south due to warming sea and air temperatures. Here we assessed population trends of the Baja California population, and climate change in the region. The numbers of northern elephant seals in Baja California colonies have been decreasing since the 1990s, and both the surface waters off Baja California and the local air temperatures have warmed during the last three decades. We propose that declining popul...

20 year Projected Urban Growth scenarios. Base year is 2000. Projected year in this dataset is 2020.

By 2020, most forecasters agree, California will be home to between 43 and 46 million residents-up from 35 million today. Beyond 2020 the size of California's population is less certain. Depending on the composition of the population, and future fertility and migration rates, California's 2050 population could be as little as 50 million or as much as 70 million. One hundred years from now, if present trends continue, California could conceivably have as many as 90 million residents.

Where these future residents will live and work is unclear. For most of the 20th Century, two-thirds of Californians have lived south of the Tehachapi Mountains and west of the San Jacinto Mountains-in that part of the state commonly referred to as Southern California. Yet most of coastal Southern California is already highly urbanized, and there is relatively little vacant land available for new development. More recently, slow-growth policies in Northern California and declining developable land supplies in Southern California are squeezing ever more of the state's population growth into the San Joaquin Valley.

How future Californians will occupy the landscape is also unclear. Over the last fifty years, the state's population has grown increasingly urban. Today, nearly 95 percent of Californians live in metropolitan areas, mostly at densities less than ten persons per acre. Recent growth patterns have strongly favored locations near freeways, most of which where built in the 1950s and 1960s. With few new freeways on the planning horizon, how will California's future growth organize itself in space? By national standards, California's large urban areas are already reasonably dense, and economic theory suggests that densities should increase further as California's urban regions continue to grow. In practice, densities have been rising in some urban counties, but falling in others.

These are important issues as California plans its long-term future. Will California have enough land of the appropriate types and in the right locations to accommodate its projected population growth? Will future population growth consume ever-greater amounts of irreplaceable resource lands and habitat? Will jobs continue decentralizing, pushing out the boundaries of metropolitan areas? Will development densities be sufficient to support mass transit, or will future Californians be stuck in perpetual gridlock? Will urban and resort and recreational growth in the Sierra Nevada and Trinity Mountain regions lead to the over-fragmentation of precious natural habitat? How much water will be needed by California's future industries, farms, and residents, and where will that water be stored? Where should future highway, transit, and high-speed rail facilities and rights-of-way be located? Most of all, how much will all this growth cost, both economically, and in terms of changes in California's quality of life?

Clearly, the more precise our current understanding of how and where California is likely to grow, the sooner and more inexpensively appropriate lands can be acquired for purposes of conservation, recreation, and future facility siting. Similarly, the more clearly future urbanization patterns can be anticipated, the greater our collective ability to undertake sound city, metropolitan, rural, and bioregional planning.

Consider two scenarios for the year 2100. In the first, California's population would grow to 80 million persons and would occupy the landscape at an average density of eight persons per acre, the current statewide urban average. Under this scenario, and assuming that 10% percent of California's future population growth would occur through infill-that is, on existing urban land-California's expanding urban population would consume an additional 5.06 million acres of currently undeveloped land. As an alternative, assume the share of infill development were increased to 30%, and that new population were accommodated at a density of about 12 persons per acre-which is the current average density of the City of Los Angeles. Under this second scenario, California's urban population would consume an additional 2.6 million acres of currently undeveloped land. While both scenarios accommodate the same amount of population growth and generate large increments of additional urban development-indeed, some might say even the second scenario allows far too much growth and development-the second scenario is far kinder to California's unique natural landscape.

This report presents the results of a series of baseline population and urban growth projections for California's 38 urban counties through the year 2100. Presented in map and table form, these projections are based on extrapolations of current population trends and recent urban development trends. The next section, titled Approach, outlines the methodology and data used to develop the various projections. The following section, Baseline Scenario, reviews the projections themselves. A final section, entitled Baseline Impacts, quantitatively assesses the impacts of the baseline projections on wetland, hillside, farmland and habitat loss.

DEC. 22, 2022 – After a historically low rate of change between 2020 and 2021, the U.S. resident population increased by 0.4%, or 1,256,003, to 333,287,557 in 2022, according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2022 national and state population estimates and components of change released today.

Net international migration — the number of people moving in and out of the country — added 1,010,923 people between 2021 and 2022 and was the primary driver of growth. This represents 168.8% growth over 2021 totals of 376,029 – an indication that migration patterns are returning to pre-pandemic levels. Positive natural change (births minus deaths) increased the population by 245,080.

“There was a sizeable uptick in population growth last year compared to the prior year’s historically low increase,” said Kristie Wilder, a demographer in the Population Division at the Census Bureau. “A rebound in net international migration, coupled with the largest year-over-year increase in total births since 2007, is behind this increase.”

Regional Patterns The South, the most populous region with a resident population of 128,716,192, was the fastest-growing and the largest-gaining region last year, increasing by 1.1%, or 1,370,163. Positive net domestic migration (867,935) and net international migration (414,740) were the components with the largest contributions to this growth, adding a combined 1,282,675 residents.

The West was the only other region to experience growth in 2022, having gained 153,601 residents — an annual increase of 0.2% for a total resident population of 78,743,364 — despite losing 233,150 residents via net domestic migration (the difference between residents moving in and out of an area). Natural increase (154,405) largely accounted for the growth in the West.

The Northeast, with a population of 57,040,406, and the Midwest, with a population of 68,787,595, lost 218,851 (-0.4%) and 48,910 (-0.1%) residents, respectively. The declines in these regions were due to negative net domestic migration.

Changes in State Population Increasing by 470,708 people since July 2021, Texas was the largest-gaining state in the nation, reaching a total population of 30,029,572. By crossing the 30-million-population threshold this past year, Texas joins California as the only states with a resident population above 30 million. Growth in Texas last year was fueled by gains from all three components: net domestic migration (230,961), net international migration (118,614), and natural increase (118,159).

Florida was the fastest-growing state in 2022, with an annual population increase of 1.9%, resulting in a total resident population of 22,244,823.

“While Florida has often been among the largest-gaining states,” Wilder noted, “this was the first time since 1957 that Florida has been the state with the largest percent increase in population.”

It was also the second largest-gaining state behind Texas, with an increase of 416,754 residents. Net migration was the largest contributing component of change to Florida’s growth, adding 444,484 residents. New York had the largest annual numeric and percent population decline, decreasing by 180,341 (-0.9%). Net domestic migration (-299,557) was the largest contributing component to the state’s population decline.

Eighteen states experienced a population decline in 2022, compared to 15 and DC the prior year. California, with a population of 39,029,342, and Illinois, with a population of 12,582,032, also had six-figure decreases in resident population. Both states’ declining populations were largely due to net domestic outmigration, totaling 343,230 and 141,656, respectively.

Puerto Rico Population Changes In 2022, Puerto Rico’s population was 3,221,789. This reflects a decrease of 1.3%, or 40,904 people, between 2021 and 2022.

Puerto Rico’s population decline resulted from negative net international migration (-26,447) and negative natural change (-14,457), where deaths outnumber births.

                            **###Components of Change for States**

In 2022, 24 states experienced negative natural change, or natural decrease. Florida had the highest natural decrease at -40,216, followed by Pennsylvania (-23,021) and Ohio (-19,543). In 2021, 25 states had natural decrease.

Of the 26 states and the District of Columbia where births outnumbered deaths, Texas (118,159), California (106,155) and New York (35,611) had the highest natural increase.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia saw positive net international migration with California (125,715), Florida (125,629) and Texas (118,614) having the largest gains.

The biggest gains from net domestic migration last year were in Florida (318,855), Texas (230,961) and North Carolina (99,796), while the biggest losses were in California (-343,230), New York (-299,557) and Illinois...

A. SUMMARY This dataset shows San Francisco COVID-19 deaths by population characteristics. This data may not be immediately available for recently reported deaths. Data updates as more information becomes available. Because of this, death totals may increase or decrease.

Population characteristics are subgroups, or demographic cross-sections, like age, race, or gender. The City tracks how deaths have been distributed among different subgroups. This information can reveal trends and disparities among groups.

B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED As of January 1, 2023, COVID-19 deaths are defined as persons who had COVID-19 listed as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to their death on their death certificate. This definition is in alignment with the California Department of Public Health and the national https://preparedness.cste.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CSTE-Revised-Classification-of-COVID-19-associated-Deaths.Final_.11.22.22.pdf">Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Death certificates are maintained by the California Department of Public Health.

Data on the population characteristics of COVID-19 deaths are from: *Case reports *Medical records *Electronic lab reports *Death certificates

Data are continually updated to maximize completeness of information and reporting on San Francisco COVID-19 deaths.

To protect resident privacy, we summarize COVID-19 data by only one population characteristic at a time. Data are not shown until cumulative citywide deaths reach five or more.

Data notes on select population characteristic types are listed below.

Race/ethnicity * We include all race/ethnicity categories that are collected for COVID-19 cases.

Gender * The City collects information on gender identity using these guidelines.

C. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 06:30 and 07:30 AM Pacific Time on Wednesday each week.

Dataset will not update on the business day following any federal holiday.

D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET Population estimates are only available for age groups and race/ethnicity categories. San Francisco population estimates for race/ethnicity and age groups can be found in a dataset based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset.These population estimates are from the 2018-2022 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).

This dataset includes several characteristic types. Filter the “Characteristic Type” column to explore a topic area. Then, the “Characteristic Group” column shows each group or category within that topic area and the number of cumulative deaths.

Cumulative deaths are the running total of all San Francisco COVID-19 deaths in that characteristic group up to the date listed.

To explore data on the total number of deaths, use the COVID-19 Deaths Over Time dataset.

E. CHANGE LOG

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; hereinafter sage-grouse) is a sagebrush obligate species and widely considered an indicator species for sagebrush ecosystems and other sagebrush-dependent species (Hanser and Knick, 2011; Prochazka and others, 2023). Sagebrush ecosystems are threatened by a wide range of disturbances and anthropogenic factors, including climate change, severe drought, altered wildfire regimes, expansion of invasive species, and anthropogenic development. Collectively, these threats have led to reduced ecological integrity and sage-grouse habitat quality within the sagebrush biome (Doherty and others, 2022). Steady and long-term declines in sage-grouse populations have led to large-scale efforts to improve population performance and prevent additional loss of habitat for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species (Coates and others, 2021). Due to their complex space use and habitat selection patterns during different life stages, requirements for large intact tracts of sagebrush, declining population trends, and status as a proposed protected species, sage-grouse have become integral to land management and conservation policy throughout the western United States (Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2015; Doherty and others, 2022). References cited: Coates, P.S., Prochazka, B.G., Aldridge, C.L., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Monroe, A.P., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., and Chenaille, M.P., 2023, Range-wide population trend analysis for greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)-Updated 1960-2022: U.S. Geological Survey Data Report 1175, 17 p., accessed December 7, 2023, at [Available at https://doi.org/10.3133/dr1175.] Doherty, K., Theobald, D.M., Bradford, J.B., Wiechman, L.A., Bedrosian, G., Boyd, C.S., Cahill, M., Coates, P.S., Creutzburg, M.K., Crist, M.R., Finn, S.P., Kumar, A.V., Littlefield, C.E., Maestas, J.D., Prentice, K.L., Prochazka, B.G., Remington, T.E., Sparklin, W.D., Tull, J.C., Wurtzebach, Z., and Zeller, K.A., 2022, A sagebrush conservation design to proactively restore America’s sagebrush biome: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2022-1081, 38 p., accessed December 6, 2023, at https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20221081. Hanser, S.E., and Knick, S.T., 2011, Greater sage-grouse as an umbrella species for shrubland passerine birds-A multiscale assessment, chap. 19 in Knick, S.T., eds., Greater sage grouse-Ecology and conservation of a landscape species and its habitats: University of California Press, p. 474-487. [Available at https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520267114.003.0020.] Prochazka, B.G., Coates, P.S., O’Donnell, M.S., Edmunds, D.R., Monroe, A.P., Ricca, M.A., Wann, G.T., Hanser, S.E., Wiechman, L.A., Doherty, K.E., Chenaille, M.P., and Aldridge, C.L., 2023, A targeted annual warning system developed for the conservation of a sagebrush indicator species: Ecological Indicators, v. 148. [Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110097.] Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2015, Greater sage-grouse population trends: an analysis of lek count databases 1965-2015: Cheyenne, Wyo., Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 55 p., accessed 07 12, 2023, at https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/technical_reports/ng451p621

In 2011, a historic Supreme Court decision mandated that the state of California substantially reduce its prison population to alleviate overcrowding, which was deemed so severe as to preclude the provision of adequate healthcare. To comply, California passed the Public Safety Realignment Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 109), representing the largest ever court-ordered reduction of a prison population in U.S. history. AB109 was successful in reducing the state prison population; however, although the policy was precipitated by inadequate healthcare in state prisons, no studies have examined its effects on prisoner health. As other states grapple with overcrowded prisons and look to California’s experience with this landmark policy, understanding how it may have impacted prisoner health is critical. We sought to evaluate the effects of AB109 on prison mortality and assess the extent to which policy-induced changes in the age distribution of prisoners may have contributed to these effects. To do so, we used prison mortality data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the California Deaths in Custody reporting program and prison population data from the National Corrections Reporting Program to examine changes in overall prison mortality, the age distribution of prisoners, and age-adjusted prison mortality in California relative to other states before and after the implementation of AB109. Following AB109, California prisons experienced an increase in overall mortality relative to other states that attenuated within three years. Over the same period, California experienced a greater upward shift in the age distribution of its prisoners relative to other states, suggesting that the state’s increase in overall mortality may have been driven by this change in age distribution. Indeed, when accounting for this differential change in age distribution, mortality among California prisoners exhibited a greater reduction relative to other states in the third year after implementation. As other states seek to reduce their prison populations to address overcrowding, assessments of California’s experience with AB109 should consider this potential improvement in age-adjusted mortality.

Bumble bees (Bombus) are vitally important pollinators of wild plants and agricultural crops worldwide. Fragmentary observations, however, have suggested population declines in several North American species. Despite rising concern over these observations in the United States, highlighted in a recent National Academy of Sciences report, a national assessment of the geographic scope and possible causal factors of bumble bee decline is lacking. Here, we report results of a 3-y interdisciplinary study of changing distributions, population genetic structure, and levels of pathogen infection in bumble bee populations across the United States. We compare current and historical distributions of eight species, compiling a database of >73,000 museum records for comparison with data from intensive nationwide surveys of >16,000 specimens. We show that the relative abundances of four species have declined by up to 96% and that their surveyed geographic ranges have contracted by 23–87%, some within the last 20 y. We also show that declining populations have significantly higher infection levels of the microsporidian pathogen Nosema bombi and lower genetic diversity compared with co-occurring populations of the stable (nondeclining) species. Higher pathogen prevalence and reduced genetic diversity are, thus, realistic predictors of these alarming patterns of decline in North America, although cause and effect remain uncertain. Bumble bees (Bombus) are integral wild pollinators within native plant communities throughout temperate ecosystems, and recent domestication has boosted their economic importance in crop pollination to a level surpassed only by the honey bee. Their robust size, long tongues, and buzz-pollination behavior (high-frequency buzzing to release pollen from flowers) significantly increase the efficiency of pollen transfer in multibillion dollar crops such as tomatoes and berries. Disturbing reports of bumble bee population declines in Europe have recently spilled over into North America, fueling environmental and economic concerns of global decline. However, the evidence for large-scale range reductions across North America is lacking. Many reports of decline are unpublished, and the few published studies are limited to independent local surveys in northern California/southern Oregon, Ontario, Canada, and Illinois. Furthermore, causal factors leading to the alleged decline of bumble bee populations in North America remain speculative. One compelling but untested hypothesis for the cause of decline in the United States entails the spread of a putatively introduced pathogen, Nosema bombi, which is an obligate intracellular microsporidian parasite found commonly in bumble bees throughout Europe but largely unstudied in North America. Pathogenic effects of N. bombi may vary depending on the host species and reproductive caste and include reductions in colony growth and individual life span and fitness. Population genetic factors could also play a role in Bombus population decline. For instance, small effective population sizes and reduced gene flow among fragmented habitats can result in losses of genetic diversity with negative consequences, and the detrimental impacts of these genetic factors can be especially intensified in bees. Population genetic studies of Bombus are rare worldwide. A single study in the United States identified lower genetic diversity and elevated genetic differentiation (FST) among Illinois populations of the putatively declining B. pensylvanicus relative to those of a codistributed stable species. Similar patterns have been observed in comparative studies of some European species, but most investigations have been geographically restricted and based on limited sampling within and among populations. Although the investigations to date have provided important information on the increasing rarity of some bumble bee species in local populations, the different survey protocols and limited geographic scope of these studies cannot fully capture the general patterns necessary to evaluate the underlying processes or overall gravity of declines. Furthermore, valid tests of the N. bombi hypothesis and its risk to populations across North America call for data on its geographic distribution and infection prevalence among species. Likewise, testing the general importance of population genetic factors in bumble bee decline requires genetic comparisons derived from sampling of multiple stable and declining populations on a large geographic scale. From such range-wide comparisons, we provide incontrovertible evidence that multiple Bombus species have experienced sharp population declines at the national level. We also show that declining populations are associated with both high N. bombi infection levels and low genetic diversity. This data was used in the paper "Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees" published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of United States of America. For more information about this dataset contact: Sydney A. Cameron: scameron@life.illinois.edu James Strange: James.Strange@ars.usda.gov Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Data from: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees (Data Dictionary). File Name: meta.xmlResource Description: This is an XML data dictionary for Data from: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees.Resource Title: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees (DWC Archive). File Name: occurrence.csvResource Description: File modified to remove fields with no recorded values.Resource Title: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees (DWC Archive). File Name: dwca-usda-ars-patternsofwidespreaddecline-bumblebees-v1.1.zipResource Description: Data from: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees -- this is a Darwin Core Archive file. The Darwin Core Archive is a zip file that contains three documents.

The occurrence data is stored in the occurrence.txt file. The metadata that describes the columns of this document is called meta.xml. This document is also the data dictionary for this dataset. The metadata that describes the dataset, including author and contact information for this dataset is called eml.xml.

Find the data files at https://bison.usgs.gov/ipt/resource?r=usda-ars-patternsofwidespreaddecline-bumblebees

Includes data used for analyses reported in this manuscript

The Likely Tables herd contains migrants, but this herd does not migrate between traditional summer and winter seasonal ranges. Instead, much of the herd displays a nomadic tendency, slowly migrating north for the summer using various high use areas as they move. Therefore, annual ranges were modeled using year-round data to demarcate high use areas in lieu modeling specific winter ranges. A high use area being used during winter by many of the collared animals is west of the Warner Mountains, east of U.S. Highway 395, and north of Moon Lake. Some animals live in the agricultural fields west of U.S. Highway 395. There appears to be little if any movement across the highway, which is fenced on both sides in this area. Summer ranges are spread out, with some individuals moving as far north as Goose Lake. A few outliers in the herd moved long distances south toward the Lassen herd or east to Nevada. Drought, increasing fire frequency, invasive annual grasses, and juniper encroachment negatively affect pronghorn habitat. Recent population surveys indicate a declining population (Trausch and others, 2020). Juniper removal on public and private lands have potential to improve habitat quality and potentially reduce predation (Ewanyk, 2020). Fences on public and private lands affect movement corridors and increase crossing and/or migration times. Recent fence modifications on BLM lands have shown potential to ease pronghorn movements (Hudgens, 2022). These mapping layers show the location of the migration stopovers for pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) in the Likely Tables population in California. They were developed from 29 migration sequences collected from a sample size of 17 animals comprising GPS locations collected every 1-4 hours.

Establishing if species contractions were the result of natural phenomena or human induced landscape changes is essential for managing natural populations. Fishers (Martes pennanti) in California occur in two geographically and genetically isolated populations in the northwestern mountains and southern Sierra Nevada. Their isolation is hypothesized to have resulted from a decline in abundance and distribution associated with European settlement in the 1800s. However, there is little evidence to establish that fisher occupied the area between the two extant populations at that time. We analyzed 10 microsatellite loci from 275 contemporary and 21 historical fisher samples (1880–1920) to evaluate the demographic history of fisher in California. We did not find any evidence of a recent (post-European) bottleneck in the northwestern population. In the southern Sierra Nevada, genetic subdivision within the population strongly influenced bottleneck tests. After accounting for genetic subdivision, we found a bottleneck signal only in the northern and central portions of the southern Sierra Nevada, indicating that the southernmost tip of these mountains may have acted as a refugium for fisher during the anthropogenic changes of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Using a coalescent-based Bayesian analysis, we detected a 90% decline in effective population size and dated the time of decline to over a thousand years ago. We hypothesize that fisher distribution in California contracted to the two current population areas pre-European settlement, and that portions of the southern Sierra Nevada subsequently experienced another more recent bottleneck post-European settlement.

As of July 2nd, 2024 the COVID-19 Deaths by Population Characteristics Over Time dataset has been retired. This dataset is archived and will no longer update. We will be publishing a cumulative deaths by population characteristics dataset that will update moving forward.

A. SUMMARY This dataset shows San Francisco COVID-19 deaths by population characteristics and by date. This data may not be immediately available for recently reported deaths. Data updates as more information becomes available. Because of this, death totals for previous days may increase or decrease. More recent data is less reliable.

Population characteristics are subgroups, or demographic cross-sections, like age, race, or gender. The City tracks how deaths have been distributed among different subgroups. This information can reveal trends and disparities among groups.

B. HOW THE DATASET IS CREATED As of January 1, 2023, COVID-19 deaths are defined as persons who had COVID-19 listed as a cause of death or a significant condition contributing to their death on their death certificate. This definition is in alignment with the California Department of Public Health and the national https://preparedness.cste.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CSTE-Revised-Classification-of-COVID-19-associated-Deaths.Final_.11.22.22.pdf">Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. Death certificates are maintained by the California Department of Public Health.

Data on the population characteristics of COVID-19 deaths are from: *Case reports *Medical records *Electronic lab reports *Death certificates

Data are continually updated to maximize completeness of information and reporting on San Francisco COVID-19 deaths.

To protect resident privacy, we summarize COVID-19 data by only one characteristic at a time. Data are not shown until cumulative citywide deaths reach five or more.

Data notes on each population characteristic type is listed below.

Race/ethnicity * We include all race/ethnicity categories that are collected for COVID-19 cases.

Gender * The City collects information on gender identity using these guidelines.

C. UPDATE PROCESS Updates automatically at 06:30 and 07:30 AM Pacific Time on Wednesday each week.

Dataset will not update on the business day following any federal holiday.

D. HOW TO USE THIS DATASET Population estimates are only available for age groups and race/ethnicity categories. San Francisco population estimates for race/ethnicity and age groups can be found in a view based on the San Francisco Population and Demographic Census dataset. These population estimates are from the 2016-2020 5-year American Community Survey (ACS).

This dataset includes many different types of characteristics. Filter the “Characteristic Type” column to explore a topic area. Then, the “Characteristic Group” column shows each group or category within that topic area and the number of deaths on each date.

New deaths are the count of deaths within that characteristic group on that specific date. Cumulative deaths are the running total of all San Francisco COVID-19 deaths in that characteristic group up to the date listed.

This data may not be immediately available for more recent deaths. Data updates as more information becomes available.

To explore data on the total number of deaths, use the COVID-19 Deaths Over Time dataset.

E. CHANGE LOG

• 9/11/2023 - on this date, we began using an updated definition of a COVID-19 death to align with the California Department of Public Health. This change was applied to COVID-19 deaths retrospectively beginning on 1/1/2023. More information about the recommendation by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists that motivated this change can be found https://preparedness.cste.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/CSTE-Revised-Classification-of-COVID-19-associated-Deaths.Final_.11.22.22.pdf">here.
• 6/6/2023 - data on deaths by transmission type have been removed. See section ARCHIVED DATA for more detail.
• 5/16/2023 - data on deaths by sexual orientation, comorbidities, homelessness, and single room occupancy have been removed. See section ARCHIVED DATA for more detail.
• 4/6/2023 - the State implemented system updates to improve the integrity of historical data.
• 1/31/2023 - column “population_estimate” added.
• 3/23/2022 - ‘Native American’ changed to ‘American Indian or Alaska Native’ to align with the census.
• 1/22/2022 - system updates to improve timeliness and accuracy of cases and deaths data were implemented.

DOCTORATE DISSERTATION:Studies were carried out in Tilden Park, Contra Costa County, and Sagehen Creek, Nevada County, California., from 1951 to 1955. Population trends of Microtus montanus at Sagehen Creek and Microtus californicus at Tilden Park showed no interspecific synchrony. A local population of sooty grouse (Dendragapus fuliginosus) at Sagehen Creek also showed little indication of synchrony between the long grouse-hare cycle and the short microtine cycle. Both M. montanus and M. californicus exhibit an inverse relationship between population density and natality, as measured by ovulation rate and litter size. The age at which reproductive maturity is reached is apparently quite constant and independent of the stage of the population cycle. In M. montanus the length of the breeding season and seasonal litter production changed only slightly, declining as population density increased up to the cyclic peak. In contrast, length of the breeding season and litter production varied considerably in M. californicus. The conclusion reached is that variable reproduction is not a cause of the cyclic changes observed in population density. Thus, mortality must be the variable that produces the differences in populations from year to year. The population of adult voles immediately prior to the beginning of the breeding season is about the same each year. The level that the population reaches at the end of each breeding season depends upon the survival of individuals born during that breeding season. Changes in the survival rates of young voles are considered to be the main cause of the population differences found in the summer and autumn of the different years. Incidental to the work on population cycles, certain basic aspects of comparative reproduction have been uncovered. In M. californicus, a vole with a long breeding season, litter size is small and precocious breeding is rare. M. montanus, with a short breeding season, has large litters, and precocious breeding and polyovuly are common. Another difference between the species is that litter size is highest at the start of the breeding season in M. montanus, and then progressively declines. In M. californicus, litter size is initially low, rises to a peak in the middle of the breeding season, and then declines again. This pattern correlates with changes in the quality of forage available to the voles. A possible nutritional basis for the population fluctuations was investigated by applying commercial nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer to several of the meadows at Sagehen Creek in 1954. The M. montanus population apparently responded to the fertilization in that the decline in numbers during the summer of 1954 was not as severe in the fertilized meadows as in the unfertilized meadows, and breeding was prolonged. The response was, however, temporary. A side study on Sooty Grouse was undertaken in Sagehen Creek Basin. The major objectives were to devise some was of determining the relative abundance of the grouse from year to year, and to get some measure of the annual reproduction.

The Clear Lake herd contains migrants, but this herd does not migrate between traditional summer and winter seasonal ranges. Instead, much of the herd displays a nomadic tendency, slowly migrating north, east, or south for the summer using various high use areas as they move. Therefore, annual ranges were modeled using year-round data to demarcate high use areas in lieu of modeling specific winter ranges. The areas adjacent to Clear Lake Reservoir were heavily used during winter by many of the collared animals. A few collared individuals persisted west of State Route 139 year-round, seemingly separated from the rest of the herd due to this highway barrier. However, some pronghorn cross this road near Cornell and join this subgroup. Summer ranges are spread out, with many individuals moving southeast through protected forests or over the state border into Oregon. A few outliers in the herd moved long distances south, crossing State Route 139 to Oak Ridge, or east into Likely Tables pronghorn herd areas. Drought, increasing fire frequency, invasive annual grasses, and juniper encroachment negatively affect pronghorn habitat. Recent population surveys indicate a declining population (Trausch and others, 2020). Juniper removal on public and private lands has potential to improve habitat quality and potentially reduce predation (Ewanyk, 2020). These mapping layers show the location of the migration corridors for pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) in the Clear Lake population in California. They were developed from 72 migration sequences collected from a sample size of 23 animals comprising GPS locations collected every 1-6 hours.

DOCTORATE DISSERTATION: A study of a beaver population at Sagehen Creek, California. Beaver were trapped, measured, marked, and observed. Colony dynamics including movement, social structure, and physical structure were studied. Stream habitat was mapped and characterized. The dissertation also includes a review of literature on beaver and an analysis of beaver and vegitation equilibrium.

In 2023, the marriage rate in California stood at *** marriages per 1,000 of the population. This was a decrease from the previous year, when the marriage rate in the state stood at *** marriages per 1,000 of the population.

Animal and plant species often face multiple threats simultaneously. We explored the relative impact of three major threats on populations of the endangered San Joaquin kit fox. This species was once widely distributed across the southern San Joaquin Valley, California, USA, but agriculture and urban development have replaced much of its natural habitat. We modeled impacts of climate change, land-use change, and rodenticide exposure on kit fox populations using a spatially explicit, individual-based population model from 2000 to 2050 for the Central Valley, California. Our study indicates that land-use change will likely have the largest impact on kit fox populations. Land development has the potential to decrease populations by approximately 15% under a compact growth scenario in which projected population increases are accommodated within existing urban areas, and 17% under a business-as-usual scenario in which future population growth increases the developed area around urban centers. Plausible scenarios for exposure to pesticides suggest a reduction in kit fox populations by approximately 13%. By contrast, climate change has the potential to ameliorate some of these impacts. Climate-change induced vegetation shifts have the potential to increase total available kit fox habitat and could drive population increases of up to 7%. These vegetation shifts could also reduce movement barriers and create opportunities for hybridization between the endangered San Joaquin kit fox and the more widely distributed desert kit fox, found in the Mojave Desert. In contrast to these beneficial impacts, increasing climate extremes raise the probability of the kit fox population dropping below critical levels. Taken together, these results paint a complex picture of how an at-risk species is likely to respond to multiple threats.