LAC is the most water-rich region in the world by most metrics; however, water resource distribution throughout the region does not correspond demand. To understand water risk throughout the region, this dataset provides population and land area estimates for factors related to water risk, allowing users to explore vulnerability throughout the region to multiple dimensions of water risk. This dataset contains estimates of populations living in areas of water stress and risk in 27 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) at the municipal level. The dataset contains categories of 18 factors related to water risk and 39 indices of water risk and population estimates within each with aggregations possible at the basin, state, country, and regional level. The population data used to generate this dataset were obtained from the WorldPop project 2020 UN-adjusted population projections, while estimates of water stress and risk come from WRI’s Aqueduct 3.0 Water Risk Framework. Municipal administrative boundaries are from the Database of Global Administrative Areas (GADM). For more information on the methodology users are invited to read IADB Technical Note IDB-TN-2411: “Scarcity in the Land of Plenty”, and WRIs “Aqueduct 3.0: Updated Decision-relevant Global Water Risk Indicators”.

This dataset provides values for POPULATION reported in several countries. The data includes current values, previous releases, historical highs and record lows, release frequency, reported unit and currency.

The Latin America population database is part of an ongoing effort to improve global, spatially referenced demographic data holdings. Such databases are useful for a variety of applications including strategic-level agricultural research and applications in the analysis of the human dimensions of global change.

 This documentation describes the Latin American Population Database, a
 collaborative effort between the International Center for Tropical
 Agriculture (CIAT), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP-GRID,
 Sioux Falls) and the World Resources Institute (WRI). This work is
 intended to provide a population database that compliments previous
 work carried out for Asia and Africa. This data set is more detailed
 than the Africa and Asia data sets. Population estimates for 1960,
 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000 are also provided. The work discussed in the
 following paragraphs is also related to NCGIA activities to produce a
 global database of subnational population estimates (Tobler et
 al. 1995), and an improved database for the Asian continent (Deichmann
 1996a).

• The current US Census Bureau world population estimate in June 2019 shows that the current global population is 7,577,130,400 people on Earth, which far exceeds the world population of 7.2 billion in 2015. Our estimate based on UN data shows the world's population surpassing 7.7 billion.
• China is the most populous country in the world with a population exceeding 1.4 billion. It is one of just two countries with a population of more than 1 billion, with India being the second. As of 2018, India has a population of over 1.355 billion people, and its population growth is expected to continue through at least 2050. By the year 2030, India is expected to become the most populous country in the world. This is because India’s population will grow, while China is projected to see a loss in population.
• The following 11 countries that are the most populous in the world each have populations exceeding 100 million. These include the United States, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Russia, Mexico, Japan, Ethiopia, and the Philippines. Of these nations, all are expected to continue to grow except Russia and Japan, which will see their populations drop by 2030 before falling again significantly by 2050.
• Many other nations have populations of at least one million, while there are also countries that have just thousands. The smallest population in the world can be found in Vatican City, where only 801 people reside.
• In 2018, the world’s population growth rate was 1.12%. Every five years since the 1970s, the population growth rate has continued to fall. The world’s population is expected to continue to grow larger but at a much slower pace. By 2030, the population will exceed 8 billion. In 2040, this number will grow to more than 9 billion. In 2055, the number will rise to over 10 billion, and another billion people won’t be added until near the end of the century. The current annual population growth estimates from the United Nations are in the millions - estimating that over 80 million new lives are added yearly.
• This population growth will be significantly impacted by nine specific countries which are situated to contribute to the population growth more quickly than other nations. These nations include the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania, and the United States of America. Particularly of interest, India is on track to overtake China's position as the most populous country by 2030. Additionally, multiple nations within Africa are expected to double their populations before fertility rates begin to slow entirely.

Content

• In this Dataset, we have Historical Population data for every Country/Territory in the world by different parameters like Area Size of the Country/Territory, Name of the Continent, Name of the Capital, Density, Population Growth Rate, Ranking based on Population, World Population Percentage, etc. >Dataset Glossary (Column-Wise):
• Rank: Rank by Population.
• CCA3: 3 Digit Country/Territories Code.
• Country/Territories: Name of the Country/Territories.
• Capital: Name of the Capital.
• Continent: Name of the Continent.
• 2022 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2022.
• 2020 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2020.
• 2015 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2015.
• 2010 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2010.
• 2000 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 2000.
• 1990 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 1990.
• 1980 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 1980.
• 1970 Population: Population of the Country/Territories in the year 1970.
• Area (km²): Area size of the Country/Territories in square kilometers.
• Density (per km²): Population Density per square kilometer.
• Growth Rate: Population Growth Rate by Country/Territories.
• World Population Percentage: The population percentage by each Country/Territories.

This dataset was created to support the 2016 DIA (Related publication only available in Spanish). The accelerated aging process that countries in Latin America and the Caribbean are undergoing imposes unprecedented pressures on the long-term care sector. In this context, the growing demand for care from the elderly population occurs alongside a reduction in the availability of informal care. Governments in the region must prepare to address these pressures by supporting the provision of care services to alleviate social exclusion in old age. The Inter-American Development Bank has created an Observatory on Aging and Care — the focus of this policy brief — aimed at providing decision-makers with information to design policies based on available empirical evidence. In this initial phase, the Observatory seeks to document the demographic situation of countries in the region, the health of their elderly population, their limitations and dependency status, as well as their main socioeconomic characteristics. The goal is to estimate the care needs countries in the region will face. This brief summarizes the key findings from an initial analysis of the data. The results highlight the scale of the problem. The figures speak for themselves: in the region, 11% of the population aged 60 and older is dependent. Both the magnitude and intensity of dependency increase with age. Women are the most affected across all age groups. This policy brief is part of a series of studies on dependency care, including works by Caruso, Galiani, and Ibarrarán (2017); Medellín et al. (2018); López-Ortega (2018); and Aranco and Sorio (2018).

Local ecological evidence is key to informing conservation. However, many global biodiversity indicators often neglect local ecological evidence published in languages other than English, potentially biassing our understanding of biodiversity trends in areas where English is not the dominant language. Brazil is a megadiverse country with a thriving national scientific publishing landscape. Here, using Brazil and a species abundance indicator as examples, we assess how well bilingual literature searches can both improve data coverage for a country where English is not the primary language and help tackle biases in biodiversity datasets. We conducted a comprehensive screening of articles containing abundance data for vertebrates published in 59 Brazilian journals (articles in Portuguese or English) and 79 international English-only journals. These were grouped into three datasets according to journal origin and article language (Brazilian-Portuguese, Brazilian-English and International). We analysed the taxonomic, spatial and temporal coverage of the datasets, compared their average abundance trends and investigated predictors of such trends with a modelling approach. Our results showed that including data published in Brazilian journals, especially those in Portuguese, strongly increased representation of Brazilian vertebrate species (by 10.1 times) and populations (by 7.6 times) in the dataset. Meanwhile, international journals featured a higher proportion of threatened species. There were no marked differences in spatial or temporal coverage between datasets, in spite of different bias towards infrastructures. Overall, while country-level trends in relative abundance did not substantially change with the addition of data from Brazilian journals, uncertainty considerably decreased. We found that population trends in international journals showed stronger and more frequent decreases in average abundance than those in national journals, regardless of whether the latter were published in Portuguese or English. Policy implications. Collecting data from local sources markedly further strengthens global biodiversity databases by adding species not previously included in international datasets. Furthermore, the addition of these data helps to understand spatial and temporal biases that potentially influence abundance trends at both national and global level. We show how incorporating non-English-language studies in global databases and indicators could provide a more complete understanding of biodiversity trends and therefore better inform global conservation policy. Methods Data collection We collected time-series of vertebrate population abundance suitable for entry into the LPD (livingplanetindex.org), which provides the repository for one of the indicators in the GBF, the Living Planet Index (LPI, Ledger et al., 2023). Despite the continuous addition of new data, LPI coverage remains incomplete for some regions (Living Planet Report 2024 – A System in Peril, 2024). We collected data from three sets of sources: a) Portuguese-language articles from Brazilian journals (hereafter “Brazilian-Portuguese” dataset), b) English-language articles from Brazilian journals (“Brazilian-English” dataset) and c) English-language articles from non-Brazilian journals (“International” dataset). For a) and b), we first compiled a list of Brazilian biodiversity-related journals using the list of non-English-language journals in ecology and conservation published by the translatE project (www.translatesciences.com) as a starting point. The International dataset was obtained from the LPD team and sourced from the 78 journals they routinely monitor as part of their ongoing data searches. We excluded journals whose scope was not relevant to our work (e.g. those focusing on agroforestry or crop science), and taxon-specific journals (e.g. South American Journal of Herpetology) since they could introduce taxonomic bias to the data collection process. We considered only articles published between 1990 and 2015, and thus further excluded journals that published articles exclusively outside of this timeframe. We chose this period because of higher data availability (Deinet et al., 2024), since less monitoring took place in earlier decades, and data availability for the last decade is also not as high as there is a lag between data being collected and trends becoming available in the literature. Finally, we excluded any journals that had inactive links or that were no longer available online. While we acknowledge that biodiversity data are available from a wider range of sources (grey literature, online databases, university theses etc.), here we limited our searches to peer-reviewed journals and articles published within a specific timeframe to standardise data collection and allow for comparison between datasets. We screened a total of 59 Brazilian journals; of these, nine accept articles only in English, 13 only in Portuguese and 37 in both languages. We systematically checked all articles of all issues published between 1990 and 2015. Articles that appeared to contain abundance data for vertebrate species based on title and/or abstract were further evaluated by reading the material and methods section. For an article to be included in our dataset, we followed the criteria applied for inclusion into the LPD (livingplanetindex.org/about_index#data): a) data must have been collected using comparable methods for at least two years for the same population, and b) units must be of population size, either a direct measure such as population counts or densities, or indices, or a reliable proxy such as breeding pairs, capture per unit effort or measures of biomass for a single species (e.g. fish data are often available in one of the latter two formats). Assessing search effectiveness and dataset representation We calculated the encounter rate of relevant articles (i.e. those that satisfied the criteria for inclusion in our datasets) for each journal as the proportion of such articles relative to the total number of articles screened for that journal. We assessed the taxonomic representation of each dataset by calculating the percentage of species of each vertebrate group (all fishes combined, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) with relevant abundance data in relation to the number of species of these groups known to occur in Brazil. The total number of known species for each taxon was compiled from national-level sources (amphibians, Segalla et al. 2021; birds, (Pacheco et al., 2021); mammals, Abreu et al. 2022; reptiles, Costa, Guedes and Bérnils, 2022) or through online databases (Fishbase, Froese and Pauly, 2024). We calculated accumulation curves using 1,000 permutations and applying the rarefaction method, using the vegan package (Jari Oksanen et al., 2024). These represent the cumulative number of new species added with each article containing relevant data, allowing us to assess how additional data collection could increase coverage of abundance data across datasets. To compare species threat status among datasets, we used the category for each species available in the Brazilian (‘Sistema de Avaliação do Risco de Extinção da Biodiversidade – SALVE’, 2024) and IUCN Red List (IUCN, 2024), and calculated the percentage of species in each category per dataset. To assess and compare the temporal coverage of the different datasets, we calculated the number of populations and species across time. To assess geographic gaps, we mapped the locations of each population using QGIS version 3.6 (QGIS Development Team, 2019). We then quantified the bias of terrestrial records towards proximity to infrastructures (airports, cities, roads and waterbodies) at a 0.5º resolution (circa 55.5 km x 55.5 km at the equator) and a 2º buffer using posterior weights from the R package sampbias (Zizka, Antonelli and Silvestro, 2021). Higher posterior weights indicate stronger bias effect. Generalised linear mixed models and population abundance trends We used the rlpi R package (Freeman et al., 2017) to calculate trends in relative abundance. We calculated the average lambda (logged annual rate of change) for each time-series by averaging the lambda values across all years between the start and the end year of the time-series. We then built generalised linear mixed models (GLMM) to test how average lambdas changed across language (Portuguese vs English), journal origin (national vs international), and taxonomic group, using location, journal name, and species as random intercepts (Table 1). We offset these by the number of sampled years to adjust summed lambda to a standardised measure, to allow comparison across different observations with different length of time series and plotted the beta coefficients (effect sizes) of all factors. Finally, we performed a post-hoc test to check pairwise differences between taxonomic groups (Table S2). To assess the influence of national-level data on global trends in relative abundance, we calculated the trends for both the International dataset and the two combined Brazilian datasets (Brazilian-Portuguese and Brazilian-English), using only years for which data were available for more than one species, to be able to estimate trend variation. We also plotted the trends for the Brazilian datasets separately. All analyses were performed in R 4.4.1 (R Core Team, 2024).

This dataset presents information on historical central government revenues for 31 countries in Europe and the Americas for the period from 1800 (or independence) to 2012. The countries included are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany (West Germany between 1949 and 1990), Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. In other words, the dataset includes all South American, North American, and Western European countries with a population of more than one million, plus Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and Mexico. The dataset contains information on the public finances of central governments. To make such information comparable cross-nationally the researchers chose to normalize nominal revenue figures in two ways: (i) as a share of the total budget, and (ii) as a share of total gross domestic product. The total tax revenue of the central state is disaggregated guided by the Government Finance Statistics Manual 2001 of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) which provides a classification of types of revenue, and describes in detail the contents of each classification category. Given the paucity of detailed historical data and the needs of our project, researchers combined some subcategories. First, they were interested in total tax revenue, as well as the shares of total revenue coming from direct and indirect taxes. Further, they measured two sub-categories of direct taxation, namely taxes on property and income. For indirect taxes, they separated excises, consumption, and customs.

Abstract

The Global Consumption Database (GCD) contains information on consumption patterns at the national level, by urban/rural area, and by income level (4 categories: lowest, low, middle, higher with thresholds based on a global income distribution), for 92 low and middle-income countries, as of 2010. The data were extracted from national household surveys. The consumption is presented by category of products and services of the International Comparison Program (ICP) 2005, which mostly corresponds to COICOP. For three countries, sub-national data are also available (Brazil, India, and South Africa). Data on population estimates are also included.

       The data file can be used for the production of the following tables (by urban/rural and income class/consumption segment):
       - Sample Size by Country, Area and Consumption Segment (Number of Households)
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the National Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Area and Consumption Segment, as a Percentage of the Area Population
       - Population 2010 by Country, Age Group, Sex and Consumption Segment
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP (Million)
       - Household Consumption 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$ (Million)
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Category of Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in Local Currency
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in US$
       - Per Capita Consumption 2010 by Country, Product or Service, Area and Consumption Segment in $PPP
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Sector, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Category of Products/Services, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Consumption Shares 2010 by Country, Product/Service, Area and Consumption Segment (Percent)
       - Percentage of Households who Reported Having Consumed the Product or Service by Country, Consumption Segment and Area (as of Survey Year)

Geographic coverage notes

For all countries, estimates are provided at the national level and at the urban/rural levels. For Brazil, India, and South Africa, data are also provided at the sub-national level (admin 1): - Brazil: ACR, Alagoas, Amapa, Amazonas, Bahia, Ceara, Distrito Federal, Espirito Santo, Goias, Maranhao, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Para, Paraiba, Parana, Pernambuco, Piaji, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Norte, Rio Grande do Sul, Rondonia, Roraima, Santa Catarina, Sao Paolo, Sergipe, Tocatins - India: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Andhra Pradesh, Arinachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chandigarh, Chattisgarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Delhi, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Madya Pradesh, Maharastra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Orissa, Pondicherry, Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, West Bengal - South Africa: Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, Kwazulu Natal, Limpopo, Mpulamanga, Northern Cape, North West, Western Cape

Kind of data

Data derived from survey microdata

This database contains tobacco consumption data from 1970-2015 collected through a systematic search coupled with consultation with country and subject-matter experts. Data quality appraisal was conducted by at least two research team members in duplicate, with greater weight given to official government sources. All data was standardized into units of cigarettes consumed and a detailed accounting of data quality and sourcing was prepared. Data was found for 82 of 214 countries for which searches for national cigarette consumption data were conducted, representing over 95% of global cigarette consumption and 85% of the world’s population. Cigarette consumption fell in most countries over the past three decades but trends in country specific consumption were highly variable. For example, China consumed 2.5 million metric tonnes (MMT) of cigarettes in 2013, more than Russia (0.36 MMT), the United States (0.28 MMT), Indonesia (0.28 MMT), Japan (0.20 MMT), and the next 35 highest consuming countries combined. The US and Japan achieved reductions of more than 0.1 MMT from a decade earlier, whereas Russian consumption plateaued, and Chinese and Indonesian consumption increased by 0.75 MMT and 0.1 MMT, respectively. These data generally concord with modelled country level data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation and have the additional advantage of not smoothing year-over-year discontinuities that are necessary for robust quasi-experimental impact evaluations. Before this study, publicly available data on cigarette consumption have been limited—either inappropriate for quasi-experimental impact evaluations (modelled data), held privately by companies (proprietary data), or widely dispersed across many national statistical agencies and research organisations (disaggregated data). This new dataset confirms that cigarette consumption has decreased in most countries over the past three decades, but that secular country specific consumption trends are highly variable. The findings underscore the need for more robust processes in data reporting, ideally built into international legal instruments or other mandated processes. To monitor the impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and other tobacco control interventions, data on national tobacco production, trade, and sales should be routinely collected and openly reported. The first use of this database for a quasi-experimental impact evaluation of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is: Hoffman SJ, Poirier MJP, Katwyk SRV, Baral P, Sritharan L. Impact of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control on global cigarette consumption: quasi-experimental evaluations using interrupted time series analysis and in-sample forecast event modelling. BMJ. 2019 Jun 19;365:l2287. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l2287 Another use of this database was to systematically code and classify longitudinal cigarette consumption trajectories in European countries since 1970 in: Poirier MJ, Lin G, Watson LK, Hoffman SJ. Classifying European cigarette consumption trajectories from 1970 to 2015. Tobacco Control. 2022 Jan. DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056627. Statement of Contributions: Conceived the study: GEG, SJH Identified multi-country datasets: GEG, MP Extracted data from multi-country datasets: MP Quality assessment of data: MP, GEG Selection of data for final analysis: MP, GEG Data cleaning and management: MP, GL Internet searches: MP (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese), GEG (English, French), MYS (Chinese), SKA (Persian), SFK (Arabic); AG, EG, BL, MM, YM, NN, EN, HR, KV, CW, and JW (English), GL (English) Identification of key informants: GEG, GP Project Management: LS, JM, MP, SJH, GEG Contacts with Statistical Agencies: MP, GEG, MYS, SKA, SFK, GP, BL, MM, YM, NN, HR, KV, JW, GL Contacts with key informants: GEG, MP, GP, MYS, GP Funding: GEG, SJH SJH: Hoffman, SJ; JM: Mammone J; SRVK: Rogers Van Katwyk, S; LS: Sritharan, L; MT: Tran, M; SAK: Al-Khateeb, S; AG: Grjibovski, A.; EG: Gunn, E; SKA: Kamali-Anaraki, S; BL: Li, B; MM: Mahendren, M; YM: Mansoor, Y; NN: Natt, N; EN: Nwokoro, E; HR: Randhawa, H; MYS: Yunju Song, M; KV: Vercammen, K; CW: Wang, C; JW: Woo, J; MJPP: Poirier, MJP; GEG: Guindon, EG; GP: Paraje, G; GL Gigi Lin Key informants who provided data: Corne van Walbeek (South Africa, Jamaica) Frank Chaloupka (US) Ayda Yurekli (Turkey) Dardo Curti (Uruguay) Bungon Ritthiphakdee (Thailand) Jakub Lobaszewski (Poland) Guillermo Paraje (Chile, Argentina) Key informants who provided useful insights: Carlos Manuel Guerrero López (Mexico) Muhammad Jami Husain (Bangladesh) Nigar Nargis (Bangladesh) Rijo M John (India) Evan Blecher (Nigeria, Indonesia, Philippines, South Africa) Yagya Karki (Nepal) Anne CK Quah (Malaysia) Nery Suarez Lugo (Cuba) Agencies providing assistance: Irani... Visit https://dataone.org/datasets/sha256%3Aaa1b4aae69c3399c96bfbf946da54abd8f7642332d12ccd150c42ad400e9699b for complete metadata about this dataset.

This dataset, released August 2017, contains the Australian residents population by their birthplace divided into English speaking (ES) and non-English speaking (NES) countries, 2016. The following countries are designated as ES: Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States of America; the remaining countries are designated as NES. The dataset also includes the population people born overseas and report poor proficiency in English. The data is by Primary Health Network (PHN) 2017 geographic boundaries based on the 2016 Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS). There are 31 PHNs set up by the Australian Government. Each network is controlled by a board of medical professionals and advised by a clinical council and community advisory committee. The boundaries of the PHNs closely align with the Local Hospital Networks where possible. For more information please see the data source notes on the data. Source: Compiled by PHIDU based on the ABS Census of Population and Housing, August 2016. AURIN has spatially enabled the original data. Data that was not shown/not applicable/not published/not available for the specific area ('#', '..', '^', 'np, 'n.a.', 'n.y.a.' in original PHIDU data) was removed.It has been replaced by by Blank cells. For other keys and abbreviations refer to PHIDU Keys.

• Worldwide distribution is reported for regions with more than 3% of a given SITs as compared to their total number in the SITVIT2 database. The definition of macro-geographical regions and sub-regions (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm) is according to the United Nations; Regions: AFRI (Africa), AMER (Americas), ASIA (Asia), EURO (Europe), and OCE (Oceania), subdivided in: E (Eastern), M (Middle), C (Central), N (Northern), S (Southern), SE (South-Eastern), and W (Western). Furthermore, CARIB (Caribbean) belongs to Americas, while Oceania is subdivided in 4 sub-regions, AUST (Australasia), MEL (Melanesia), MIC (Micronesia), and POLY (Polynesia). Note that in our classification scheme, Russia has been attributed a new sub-region by itself (Northern Asia) instead of including it among rest of the Eastern Europe. It reflects its geographical localization as well as due to the similarity of specific TB genotypes circulating in Russia (a majority of Beijing genotypes) with those prevalent in Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Asia.** The 3 letter country codes are according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-3; countrywide distribution is only shown for SITs with ≥3% of a given SITs as compared to their total number in the SITVIT2 database. Note that FXX code designates Metropolitan France.Description of clusters containing 3 or more isolates in this study, and their worldwide distribution in the SITVIT2 database.

Data describing the development and survival of gypsy moths (Lymantria dispar L. (Lepidoptera: Erebidae)) from all three subspecies on 13 North American conifers and 3 broad leaf hosts were collected (Keena and Richards 2020). Populations from the United States and Greece served as the Lymantria dispar dispar controls for comparison with the Asian strains from the L. d. asiatica (populations from China, Russia, and South Korea) and L. d. japonica (population from Japan) subspecies. The hosts compared were Acer rubrum, Betula populifolia, Quercus velutina, Pinus strobus, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Abies balsamea, Abies concolor, Larix occidentalis, Picea glauca, Picea pungens, Pinus ponderosa, Pinus taeda, Pinus palustris, Pinus rigida, Tsuga canadensis, and Juniperus virginiana.Survival and developmental data (either to 14 day or to adult with reproductive traits also evaluated) are important for assessing whether there is variation between and/or within a subspecies in host utilization. Host utilization information is critical to managers for estimating the hosts at risk and potential geographic range for Asian gypsy moths from different geographic origins in North America. Since the lists of hosts that Asian gypsy moth is known to feed on in other countries is long and no broad evaluation of North American hosts has been done, without data like these it is difficult to evaluate how the hosts at risk in North America to the Asian and established gypsy moths may differ.For more information about these data, see Keena and Richards (2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11040260).

These data were originally published on 04/17/2020. Minor metadata updates were made on 07/22/2022 and 04/25/2023.

• A total of 39/40 SITs containing 85 isolates matched a preexisting shared-type in the database, whereas 1/40 SIT (n = 2 isolates) was newly created. A total of 13/40 SITs containing 60 isolates were clustered within this study (2 to 11 isolates per cluster) while 27/40 SITs containing 27 strains were unique (for total unique strains, one should add to this number the 16 orphan strains, which brings the number of unclustered isolates in this study to 43/103 or 41.75%, and clustered isolates to 60/103 or 58.25%). Note that SIT followed by an asterisk indicates “newly created” SIT due to 2 or more strains belonging to an identical new pattern within this study or after a match with an orphan in the database; SIT designation followed by number of strains: 4013* this study n = 2, USA n = 1.** Lineage designations according to SITVIT2 using revised SpolDB4 rules; “Unknown” designates patterns with signatures that do not belong to any of the major lineages described in the database.*** Clustered strains correspond to a similar spoligotype pattern shared by 2 or more strains “within this study”; as opposed to unique strains harboring a spoligotype pattern that does not match with another strain from this study. Unique strains matching a preexisting pattern in the SITVIT2 database are classified as SITs, whereas in case of no match, they are designated as “orphan”.Description of 40 shared-types (SITs; n = 87 isolates) and corresponding spoligotyping defined lineages/sublineages starting from a total of 103 M. tuberculosis strains isolated in Santiago, Chile.

A dataset listing Florida counties by population for 2024.

aCatholic populations by country from http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/sc1.html[4].bOnly the top 31 Catholic countries with more than 5 million Catholics and countries in which at least 50% of the population is Catholic are included (as well as Canada and Uganda, each with more than 40% Catholic population), which excludes India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria, and Vietnam.cFrom [6], [7].dFrom [8], [9].eFrom [10], [11].fChagas disease is found in every South American and Central American country listed [5].gFrom [31].

As of April 2024, Bahrain was the country with the highest Instagram audience reach with 95.6 percent. Kazakhstan also had a high Instagram audience penetration rate, with 90.8 percent of the population using the social network. In the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Brunei, the photo-sharing platform was used by more than 85 percent of each country's population.

The world population surpassed eight billion people in 2022, having doubled from its figure less than 50 years previously. Looking forward, it is projected that the world population will reach nine billion in 2038, and 10 billion in 2060, but it will peak around 10.3 billion in the 2080s before it then goes into decline. Regional variations The global population has seen rapid growth since the early 1800s, due to advances in areas such as food production, healthcare, water safety, education, and infrastructure, however, these changes did not occur at a uniform time or pace across the world. Broadly speaking, the first regions to undergo their demographic transitions were Europe, North America, and Oceania, followed by Latin America and Asia (although Asia's development saw the greatest variation due to its size), while Africa was the last continent to undergo this transformation. Because of these differences, many so-called "advanced" countries are now experiencing population decline, particularly in Europe and East Asia, while the fastest population growth rates are found in Sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, the roughly two billion difference in population between now and the 2080s' peak will be found in Sub-Saharan Africa, which will rise from 1.2 billion to 3.2 billion in this time (although populations in other continents will also fluctuate). Changing projections The United Nations releases their World Population Prospects report every 1-2 years, and this is widely considered the foremost demographic dataset in the world. However, recent years have seen a notable decline in projections when the global population will peak, and at what number. Previous reports in the 2010s had suggested a peak of over 11 billion people, and that population growth would continue into the 2100s, however a sooner and shorter peak is now projected. Reasons for this include a more rapid population decline in East Asia and Europe, particularly China, as well as a prolongued development arc in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The global number of internet users in was forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2029 by in total 1.3 billion users (+23.66 percent). After the fifteenth consecutive increasing year, the number of users is estimated to reach 7 billion users and therefore a new peak in 2029. Notably, the number of internet users of was continuously increasing over the past years.Depicted is the estimated number of individuals in the country or region at hand, that use the internet. As the datasource clarifies, connection quality and usage frequency are distinct aspects, not taken into account here.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in up to 150 countries and regions worldwide. All indicators are sourced from international and national statistical offices, trade associations and the trade press and they are processed to generate comparable data sets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).Find more key insights for the number of internet users in countries like the Americas and Asia.

The number of LinkedIn users in Africa was forecast to continuously increase between 2024 and 2028 by in total 37 million users (+68.13 percent). After the ninth consecutive increasing year, the LinkedIn user base is estimated to reach 91.29 million users and therefore a new peak in 2028. Notably, the number of LinkedIn users of was continuously increasing over the past years.User figures, shown here with regards to the platform LinkedIn, have been estimated by taking into account company filings or press material, secondary research, app downloads and traffic data. They refer to the average monthly active users over the period and count multiple accounts by persons only once.The shown data are an excerpt of Statista's Key Market Indicators (KMI). The KMI are a collection of primary and secondary indicators on the macro-economic, demographic and technological environment in up to 150 countries and regions worldwide. All indicators are sourced from international and national statistical offices, trade associations and the trade press and they are processed to generate comparable data sets (see supplementary notes under details for more information).Find more key insights for the number of LinkedIn users in countries like South America and Caribbean.