Historical population as enumerated and corrected from 1790 through 2020. North Carolina was one of the 13 original States and by the time of the 1790 census had essentially its current boundaries. The Census is mandated by the United States Constitution and was first completed for 1790. The population has been counted every ten years hence, with some limitations. In 1790 census coverage included most of the State, except for areas in the west, parts of which were not enumerated until 1840. The population for 1810 includes Walton County, enumerated as part of Georgia although actually within North Carolina. Historical populations shown here reflect the population of the respective named county and not necessarily the population of the area of the county as it was defined for a particular census. County boundaries shown in maps reflect boundaries as defined in 2020. Historic boundaries for some counties may include additional geographic areas or may be smaller than the current geographic boundaries. Notes below list the county or counties with which the population of a currently defined county were enumerated historically (Current County: Population counted in). The current 100 counties have been in place since the 1920 Census, although some modifications to the county boundaries have occurred since that time. For historical county boundaries see: Atlas of Historical County Boundaries Project (newberry.org)County Notes: Note 1: Total for 1810 includes population (1,026) of Walton County, reported as a Georgia county but later determined to be situated in western North Carolina. Total for 1890 includes 2 Indians in prison, not reported by county. Note 2: Alexander: *Iredell, Burke, Wilkes. Note 3: Avery: *Caldwell, Mitchell, Watauga. Note 4: Buncombe: *Burke, Rutherford; see also note 22. Note 5: Caldwell: *Burke, Wilkes, Yancey. Note 6: Cleveland: *Rutherford, Lincoln. Note 7: Columbus: *Bladen, Brunswick. Note 8: Dare: *Tyrrell, Currituck, Hyde. Note 9: Hoke: *Cumberland, Robeson. Note 10: Jackson: *Macon, Haywood. Note 11: Lee: *Moore, Chatham. Note 12: Lenoir: *Dobbs (Greene); Craven. Note 13: McDowell: *Burke, Rutherford. Note 14: Madison: *Buncombe, Yancey. Note 15: Mitchell: *Yancey, Watauga. Note 16: Pamlico: *Craven, Beaufort. Note 17: Polk: *Rutherford, Henderson. Note 18: Swain: *Jackson, Macon. Note 19: Transylvania: *Henderson, Jackson. Note 20: Union: *Mecklenburg, Anson. Note 21: Vance: *Granville, Warren, Franklin. Note 22: Walton: Created in 1803 as a Georgia county and reported in 1810 as part of Georgia; abolished after a review of the State boundary determined that its area was located in North Carolina. By 1820 it was part of Buncombe County. Note 23: Watauga: *Ashe, Yancey, Wilkes; Burke. Note 24: Wilson: *Edgecombe, Nash, Wayne, Johnston. Note 25: Yancey: *Burke, Buncombe. Note 26: Alleghany: *Ashe. Note 27: Haywood: *Buncombe. Note 28: Henderson: *Buncombe. Note 29: Person: Caswell. Note 30: Clay: Cherokee. Note 31: Graham: Cherokee. Note 32: Harnett: Cumberland. Note 33: Macon: Haywood.

Note 34: Catawba: Lincoln. Note 35: Gaston: Lincoln. Note 36: Cabarrus: Mecklenburg.
Note 37: Stanly: Montgomery. Note 38: Pender: New Hanover. Note 39: Alamance: Orange.
Note 40: Durham: Orange, Wake. Note 41: Scotland: Richmond. Note 42: Davidson: Rowan. Note 43: Davie: Rowan.Note 44: Forsyth: Stokes. Note 45: Yadkin: Surry.
Note 46: Washington: Tyrrell.Note 47: Ashe: Wilkes. Part III. Population of Counties, Earliest Census to 1990The 1840 population of Person County, NC should be 9,790. The 1840 population of Perquimans County, NC should be 7,346.

Provides regional identifiers for county based regions of various types. These can be combined with other datasets for visualization, mapping, analyses, and aggregation. These regions include:Metropolitan Statistical Areas (Current): MSAs as defined by US OMB in 2023Metropolitan Statistical Areas (2010s): MSAs as defined by US OMB in 2013Metropolitan Statistical Areas (2000s): MSAs as defined by US OMB in 2003Region: Three broad regions in North Carolina (Eastern, Western, Central)Council of GovernmentsProsperity Zones: NC Department of Commerce Prosperity ZonesNCDOT Divisions: NC Dept. of Transportation DivisionsNCDOT Districts (within Divisions)Metro Regions: Identifies Triangle, Triad, Charlotte, All Other Metros, & Non-MetropolitanUrban/Rural defined by:NC Rural Center (Urban, Regional/Suburban, Rural) - 2020 Census designations2010 Census (Urban = Counties with 50% or more population living in urban areas in 2010)2010 Census Urbanized (Urban = Counties with 50% or more of the population living in urbanized areas in 2010 (50,000+ sized urban area))Municipal Population - State Demographer (Urban = counties with 50% or more of the population living in a municipality as of July 1, 2019)Isserman Urban-Rural Density Typology

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts statistics for West Columbia city, South Carolina. QuickFacts data are derived from: Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, Current Population Survey, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, State and County Housing Unit Estimates, County Business Patterns, Nonemployer Statistics, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits.

1 computer laser optical disc ; 4 3/4 in. Selected block-level data from Summary tape file 1B, including total population, age, race, and Hispanic origin, number of housing units, tenure, room density, mean contract rent, mean value, and mean number of rooms in housing units. ISO 9660 format.

Population size, distance to nearest neighboring population, and location data for eight s. purpurea var. montana populations in Western North Carolina.

This geodatabase contains information on brook trout occupancy in the southern portion of the brook trout range (PA and south). Fish sample data from a number of state and federal agencies/organizations were used to define patches for brook trout as groups of occupied contiguous catchment polygons from the National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 1 (NHDPlusV1) catchment GIS layer. After defining patches, NHDPlusV1 catchments were assigned occupancy codes. Then state and federal agencies reviewed patches and codes to verify data accuracy. A similar effort is currently being conducted by the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture to develop occupancy data for the remainder of the brook trout range including states of New York, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Ohio.

Cumulative incidence per 100,000 population of La Crosse virus neuroinvasive disease for the eastern United States (US) and the five states that reported the most cases from 2003–2021.

12011 population data for individuals 18 years and older in Canada was obtained from Statistics Canada [36].22010 population data for individuals 18 years and older in the US was obtained from the US Census Bureau [38].3Regions were: Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin); Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont); South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia); West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming).42006 education data for individuals 20 years and over in Canada (most current and available data) [35].52010 education data for individuals 18 years and over in the US [37].*p

12011 population data for individuals 18 years and older in Canada was obtained from Statistics Canada [44].22010 population data for individuals 18 years and older in the US was obtained from the US Census Bureau [46].3Regions were:Midwest (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin);Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont);South (Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia);West (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming).42006 education data for individuals 20 years and over in Canada (most current and available data) [43].52010 education data for individuals 18 years and over in the US [45].*Significant at p

Patterns of population structure, genetic demographics, and gene flow in the small coastal shark Carcharhinus isodon (finetooth shark) sampled from two discrete nurseries along the southeastern US coast (Atlantic) and three nurseries in the northern Gulf of Mexico (Gulf), were assessed using 16 nuclear-encoded microsatellites and 1077 base pairs of the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) control region. Significant heterogeneity in microsatellite allele distributions was detected among all localities except between the two in the Atlantic. Significant heterogeneity in mtDNA haplotypes was not detected, a result likely due to extremely low mtDNA diversity. The genetic discontinuities combined with seasonal movement patterns, a patchy distribution of appropriate nursery habitat, the apparent absence of sex-biased gene flow, and the occurrence of mating in the vicinity of nursery areas, suggest that both male and female finetooth sharks display regional philopatry to discrete nursery areas. Global and local tests of neutrality, using mtDNA haplotypes, and demographic model testing, using Approximate Bayesian Computation of microsatellite alleles, supported a range-wide expansion of finetooth sharks into US waters occurring less than ∼9000 years ago. These findings add to the growing number of studies in a variety of coastally distributed marine fishes documenting significant barriers to gene flow around peninsular Florida and in the eastern Gulf. The findings also provide further evidence that the traditional model of behavioural ecology, based on large coastal sharks, may not be appropriate for understanding and conserving small coastal sharks.

In cooperative breeding systems, inclusive fitness theory predicts that non-breeding helpers more closely related to the breeders should be more willing to provide costly alloparental care, and thus have more impact on breeder fitness. In the red-cockaded woodpecker (Dryobates borealis), most helpers are the breeders’ earlier offspring, but helpers do vary within groups in both relatedness to the breeders (some even being unrelated) and sex, and it can be difficult to parse their separate impacts on breeder fitness. Moreover, most support for inclusive fitness theory has been positive associations between relatedness and behavior, rather than actual fitness consequences. We used functional linear models to evaluate the per capita effects of helpers of different relatedness on eight breeder fitness components measured for up to 41 years at three sites. In support of inclusive fitness theory, helpers more related to the breeding pair made greater contributions to six fitness components. However, male helpers made equal contributions to increasing pre-fledging survival regardless of relatedness. These findings suggest that both inclusive fitness benefits and other, direct benefits may underlie helping behaviors in the red-cockaded woodpecker. Our results also demonstrate the application of an underused statistical approach to disentangle a complex ecological phenomenon. Methods We used long-term demographic monitoring data collected over 28 to 41 consecutive years at three sites: the Sandhills region in south-central North Carolina (1980–2020), Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune on the central coast of North Carolina (1986–2020), and Eglin Air Force Base in the western panhandle of Florida (1993–2020). Monitoring methods are described in detail by Walters et al. (1988) (see also Appendix A for more details on monitoring). See Walters and Garcia (2016) for how individuals are assigned breeder and helper status.