Type of resources
Contact for the resource
Location of long-term mammal monitoring sites and programs. Comes from the Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Plan is developed to improve the collective ability of Arctic traditional knowledge holders, northern communities and scientists to detect, understand and report on long-term change in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity..
Distribution and observed trends of wild Rangifer populations throughout the circumpolar Arctic (from The Circum Arctic Rangifer Monitoring and Assessment Network, CARMA). Note: Wild boreal forest reindeer have not been mapped by CARMA and thus are not represented here. Published in the Arctic Biodiversity Trends 2010 - Selected indicators of change, INDICATOR #02 - released in 2010
The Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Plan is developed to improve the collective ability of Arctic traditional knowledge holders, northern communities and scientists to detect, understand and report on long-term change in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity.
A national Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) science advisory process was held in Winnipeg, Manitoba from June 14-17, 2011 to provide science advice on the identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in the Canadian Arctic based on guidance developed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. This science advisory process focused on the identification of EBSAs within the following marine biogeographic units: the Hudson Bay Complex, the Arctic Basin, the Western Arctic, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and the Eastern Arctic. Source: <a href="http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/344747.pdf" target="_blank">Fisheries and Oceans Canada</a> Reference: DFO. 2011. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA) in the Canadian Arctic. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2011/055. DFO. 2011. Identification of Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) in the Canadian Arctic; June 14-17, 2011. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Proceed. Ser. 2011/047.
Boundaries of the geographic area covered by the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Includes sub, low and high Arctic bounbaries
Appendix 3.1 Arctic Terrestrial mammals: Distribution (X = present; Introd = Introduced by humans) by broad geographic region and low or high arctic zones Nomenclature follows D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder (eds.) 2005. Mammal Species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd Ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Subdivision of the Arctic into 28 sectors follows mainly the division used in the Pan Arctic Flora (PAF) project. In a few cases some islands are separated from their mainland in the beginning, thus representing very small sectors. Some of them have now been united like in the PAF project, for example Jan Mayen with Arctic Iceland and Bear Island with Svalbard. Others, like the Beringian Islands are still kept separate from the mainland on both sides. - <a href="http://www.caff.is/assessment-series/32-pan-arctic-checklist-of-lichens-and-lichenicolous-fungi" target="_blank"> Pan-Arctic Checklist of Lichens and Lichenicolous Fungi (2011)</a>
Location of long-term vegetation (including fungi, non-vascular and vascular plants) monitoring sites and programs. Comes from the Arctic Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring Plan is developed to improve the collective ability of Arctic traditional knowledge holders, northern communities and scientists to detect, understand and report on long-term change in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity. The report can be seen here http://www.caff.is/publications/view_document/256-arctic-terrestrial-biodiversity-monitoring-plan The monitoring locations are place over the Circumpolar Arctic bioclimate subzones (CAVM Team 2003) http://www.caff.is/flora-cfg/circumpolar-arctic-vegetation-map
Regional divisions of the marine Arctic, as determined by the Marine Expert Monitoring Group of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Programme (CBMP). The Circumpolar Marine Biodiversity Monitoring plan identifies eight Arctic Marine Areas where a suite of common parameters, sampling approaches and indicators will be used. Regionally specific parameters may also be applied. Exact boundaries may change over time to reflect changing bio-physical conditions. <a href="http://caff.is/marine/marine-monitoring-publications/3-arctic-marine-biodiversity-monitoring-plan" target="_blank"> Published in the Arctic Marine Biodiversity Monitoring Plan, Chapter 2, page20 - released in 2011 </a>
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.