Numbers and taxonomic composition of five single-celled eukaryote groups for the regional divisions of the Arctic Marine Areas (pie charts), as well as the number of data sources reviewed across the Arctic (red circles). Total number of taxa is given in parenthesis after each region. Flagellates include: chlorophytes, chrysophytes, cryptophytes, dictyochophytes, euglenids, prasinophytes, prymnesiophytes, raphidophytes, synurales, and xanthophytes, and- for practical purposes though not flagellates - cyanophytes. Heterotrophs include: choanoflagellates, kinetoplastea, incertae sedis. Updated from Poulin et al. (2011). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 39- Figure 3.1.3 From the report draft: "For a pan-Arctic assessment of diversity (here defined as species richness), the first comprehensive assessments of this FEC from a few years ago (Poulin et al. 2011, Daniëls et al. 2013) have been updated for regions, with taxonomic names standardized according to the World Register of Marine Species (www.marinespecies.org). For the analysis of possible interannual trends in the ice algal community, we used a data set from the Central Arctic, the area most consistently and frequently sampled (Melnikov 2002, I. Melnikov, Shirshov Institute, unpubl. data). Multivariate community structure was analysed based on a presence-absence matrix of cores from 1980 to 2013. The analysis is biased by the varying numbers of analysed cores taken per year ranging widely from 1 to 24, ice thickness between 0.6 and 4.2 m, and including both first-year as well as multiyear sea ice. Locations included were in a bounding box within 74.9 to 90.0 °N and 179.9°W to 176.6°E and varied among years."

Arctic Marine Areas (AMAs) as defined in the CBMP Marine Plan. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine" target="_blank">Chapter 1</a> - Page 15 - Figure 1.2

Figure 3-4 Effects of permafrost thaw slumping on Arctic rivers, including (upper) a photo of thaw slump outflow entering a stream on the Peel Plateau, Northwest Territories, Canada, and (lower) log10-transformed total suspended solids (TSS) in (1) undisturbed, (2) 1-2 disturbance, and (3) > 2 disturbance stream sites, with letters indicating significant differences in mean TSS among disturbance classifications Plot reproduced from Chin et al. (2016). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter3 - Page 21 - Figure 3-4

Distribution of polar cod (Boreogadus saida) based on participation in research sampling, examination of museum voucher collections and the literature (Mecklenburg et al. 2011, 2014, 2016; Mecklenburg and Steinke 2015). Map shows the maximum distribution observed from point data and includes both common and rare locations. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-fishes" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 114 - Figure 3.4.2

Standardized metadata template, for identifying knowledge locations on Arctic Coastal Ecosystems applicable for different knowledge systems. This template was developed by the Nordic Coastal Group, composed of the Nordic representatives on CBMP Coastal. The template is intended to identify locations for Indigenous Knowledge, Scientific, Hunters Knowledge, Local Knowledge, and community-based monitoring. The template is composed of two files a Word document that provides the rationale and detailed description for the Excel sheet that allows for standardized data gathering

Figure 4-1 A generic food web diagram for a lake or river, indicating the basic trophic levels (boxes) and energy flow (arrows) between those levels. Reproduced from Culp et al. (2012a). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 25 - Figure 4-1

We present the first digital seafloor geomorphic features map (GSFM) of the global ocean. The GSFM includes 131,192 separate polygons in 29 geomorphic feature categories, used here to assess differences between passive and active continental margins as well as between 8 major ocean regions (the Arctic, Indian, North Atlantic, North Pacific, South Atlantic, South Pacific and the Southern Oceans and the Mediterranean and Black Seas). The GSFM provides quantitative assessments of differences between passive and active margins: continental shelf width of passive margins (88 km) is nearly three times that of active margins (31 km); the average width of active slopes (36 km) is less than the average width of passive margin slopes (46 km); active margin slopes contain an area of 3.4 million km2 where the gradient exceeds 5°, compared with 1.3 million km2 on passive margin slopes; the continental rise covers 27 million km2 adjacent to passive margins and less than 2.3 million km2 adjacent to active margins. Examples of specific applications of the GSFM are presented to show that: 1) larger rift valley segments are generally associated with slow-spreading rates and smaller rift valley segments are associated with fast spreading; 2) polar submarine canyons are twice the average size of non-polar canyons and abyssal polar regions exhibit lower seafloor roughness than non-polar regions, expressed as spatially extensive fan, rise and abyssal plain sediment deposits – all of which are attributed here to the effects of continental glaciations; and 3) recognition of seamounts as a separate category of feature from ridges results in a lower estimate of seamount number compared with estimates of previous workers. Reference: Harris PT, Macmillan-Lawler M, Rupp J, Baker EK Geomorphology of the oceans. Marine Geology.

Maximum LTA (long-term average) August air temperatures for the circumpolar region, with ecoregions used in the analysis of the SAFBR outlined in black. Source for temperature layer: Fick and Hijmans (2017). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 5 - Page 89 - Figure 5-5

Although the circumpolar countries endeavor to support monitoring programs that provide good coverage of Arctic and subarctic regions, this ideal is constrained by the high costs associated with repeated sampling of a large set of lakes and rivers in areas that often are very remote. Consequently, freshwater monitoring has sparse, spatial coverage in large parts of the Arctic, with only Fennoscandia and Iceland having extensive monitoring coverage of lakes and streams Figure 6-2 Current state of monitoring for river FECs in each Arctic country State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 6 - Page 94 - Figure 6-2