I learned a new term today called "fertility term" .rate.”

If a declarative sentence ends with a quotation, the punctuation must be inside the quotation marks.

It is a term can be aAbbreviated as TFR that stand, it represents the population trend in a given country or a region.

Grammar-wise, there isn’t too much wrong with the original sentence; however, it is a bit wordy and inefficient. The revisions suggested above improve its readability and make it more efficient.

Generally, scientist recognize that 2.1 for TFR is basicallya TFR of 2.1 is needed to maintain population; if a country’s TFR is over 2.1, its population is growing.

Combining this sentence with the next sentence via a semicolon improves the paragraph’s flow and the efficiently conveys the information found in both sentences.

The figure over 2.1 in a country can simply means the populations will be increased.

See previous sentence’s feedback.

I drawAfter conducting research on the internet, I made a simple table displaying the TFR ofrom six countries in 2022, I just searched them on the internetfor the year 2022.

Reorganizing this sentence and making some minor adjustments to its vocabulary adds clarity to the sentence.

* ¶
----------country: --USA--CANADA--CHINA---JAPAN---INDIA---INDONESIA ¶
----------TFR------:--1.782--1.5----------1.09-------1.36------2.16----------2.24----- ¶
* ¶
Among the six countries, cChina had the lowest total TFR at 1.09, which is even lower than Japan by 0.36.

Removing the dependent clause from this sentence and folding it into the next sentence would make more sense.
The only grammatical error seen in this sentence is that ‘China’ needed to be capitalized.

This finding surprises me because I thought Japan shwould bhave the lowest oneTFR, yet China’s TFR was 0.36 lower than Japan’s.

1) Minor usage error: ‘should’ is used to denote that something ought to or must happen, while ‘would’ denotes that something will happen in an imagined situation.
2) Though ‘be the lowest one’ is not grammatically incorrect, it is rather wordy; the revision I suggested is a more efficient expression of that same phrase.

I am used to numerousseeing articles posted on theand journals statdiscussing how Japan’s TFR wais low in Japan,d how serious inthat is for their society because of its aging problemsopulation.

However, it appears that the main aging problemopulation is in China.

Like the previous sentence, I believe you meant ‘population’ and not ‘problem’.

Additionally, it seems that more and more Chinese middle- class families are planning to send their children to the USA and Canada in the coming years.

Minor typo.

Given this observation, I I personally speculate that China might carry out some stricter policy to limit local children immigrateion abroad.

Small grammatical error.

I learned a new term today called "fertility term" ."

The punctuation should be inside the quotations.

It is a term can be abbreviated as TFR t. That stands for the population trend in a given country or a region.

The figure over 2.1 in a country can simply means the populations will be increased.

I draew a simple table display TFR from six countries in 2022,. I just searched them on the internet.

Thisese findings surprisesd me because I thought Japan shwould be the lowest one.

I used to numerous articles posted on the journals stating how TFR was low in Japan, ,and how serious it is in their society because of aging problems.

Additionally, it seems that more and more Chinese middle- class families are planning to send their children to the USA and Canada in the coming years.

Given this observation, I personally speculate that China might carry out some stricter policyies to limit local children who immigrate abroad.

I learned a new term today called "total fertility raterm" .

I think this was a typo -- it's correct in the title :)

It is a term that can be abbreviated as TFR, that stands for the population trend in a given country or a region.

"Stands" is always used as "stands for" when it is about an abbreviation.

Generally, scientists recognize that 2.1 for TFR is basically needed to maintain population.

Depending on what you mean, it might be better to say "around 2.1 for TFR," or "2.1 for TFR is usually needed..."
"Around 2.1 for TFR..." implies that it might be 2.0 or 2.2 sometimes that is needed.
"2.1 for TFR is usually needed..." means sometimes TFR is something other than 2.1 and could be totally different, like 1.5 or 3.0.
"Basically" could mean several things here so the sentence is not quite clear. Also, "basically" is more informal than the tone of the rest of this journal.

TheA figure over 2.1 in a country can simply means the populations will be increased.

"The figure" would mean you are talking about 1 specific figure. "A figure" would be used to talk about any TFR greater than 2.1.
Usually we use "population" in the singular.
"Populations" is only used to talk about many distinct groups together, and is not used very often. For example, one could say "Cities featured on the Most Populous and Highest Density lists feature populations of 5,000 or more on July 1, 2022," because we are talking about many distinct cities, and each city has its own population.

I am used to seeing numerous articles posted on the journals stating how TFR was low in Japan,; how serious it is in their society because of aging problems.

"How serious" is always followed by an object and a form of "to be." For example "...how serious I am about becoming the president," or "how serious global warning will become."
You might also rewrite the sentence above as "...how serious aging problems are in their society," if you mean that the aging problems are very serious.
The sentence above means something closer to "...how serious low TFR is in their society, since it causes problems related to aging."
Because this sentence has now become two thoughts with their own subjects ("TFR" and "it"), writers usually separate the thoughts with a semicolon in formal or science writing.

Given this observation, I personally speculate that China might carry out some stricter policy to limit local children immigrateing abroad.

You could also say "...to limit the number of local children who immigrate abroad." Both possible corrections have a very similar meaning.