The Arctic terrestrial food web includes the exchange of energy and nutrients. Arrows to and from the driver boxes indicate the relative effect and counter effect of different types of drivers on the ecosystem. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 2 - Page 26- Figure 2.4

Geographic area covered by the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment and the CBMP–Terrestrial Plan. Subzones A to E are depicted as defined in the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM Team 2003). Subzones A, B and C are the high Arctic while subzones D and E are the low Arctic. Definition of high Arctic, low Arctic, and sub-Arctic follow Hohn & Jaakkola 2010. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 1 - Page 14 - Figure 1.2

Population trends for springtails in Empetrum nigrum plant community in Kobbefjord, Greenland, 2007–2017. (a) mean population abundance of total Collembola in individuals per square metre, (b) mean number of species per sample, and (c) Shannon-Wiener diversity index per sample. Vertical error bars are standard errors of the mean. Solid lines indicate significant regression lines. Modified from Gillespie et al. 2020a. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 40 - Figure 3.13

The CBMP–Terrestrial Plan identifies five FECs for monitoring terrestrial birds; herbivores, insectivores, carnivores, omnivores and piscivores. Due to their migratory nature, a wider range of drivers, from both within and outside the Arctic, affect birds and their associated FEC attributes compared to other terrestrial FECs. Figure 3-21 illustrates a conceptual model for Arctic terrestrial birds that includes examples of FECs and key drivers. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 46 - Figure 3.21

Lemmings are currently being monitored at 38 sites. Their status and trends were determined based on data from these sites as well as recent data (since 2000) from an additional 11 previous monitoring sites (Figure 3-31). Of those sites monitored, Fennoscandia is overrepresented relative to the geographical area it covers, whereas Russia is underrepresented. Based on the skewed geographical coverage, more information is available for some species of lemmings than others, particularly the Norwegian lemming. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 80 - Figure 3.31

Current state of monitoring for Arctic terrestrial biodiversity FECs in each Arctic state. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 102 - Figure 4.1

Regional differences are more pronounced in the insectivore guild (Figure 3-24). Although diversity of waders was moderate in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, 88% (15 of 17) of taxa with known trends were declining—the largest proportion of any group. Both short-term (the last 15 years) and long-term (more than 30 years) trends were available for 157 taxa. Trends were unchanged over the two time periods for 80% of taxa, improved for 11% and worsened for 9%.. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 56 - Figure 3.24

Trends and distribution of muskoxen populations based on Table 3-5. Modified from Cuyler et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 79 - Figure 3.30

Trends in total abundance of moths and species richness, from two locations in Iceland, 1995–2016. Trends differ between locations. The solid and dashed straight lines represent linear regression lines which are significant or non-significant, respectively. Modified from Gillespie et al. 2020a. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 41 - Figure 3.14

Circumpolar trends in primary productivity as indicated by the maximum Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, 1982–2017. (a) Brown shading indicates negative MaxNDVI trends, green shading indicates positive MaxNDVI trends. (b) Chart of trends for the circumpolar Arctic, Eurasia, and North America. Modified from Frost et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 30 - Figure 3.1