Estimated consumption of polar cod by Atlantic cod in the Barents Sea (yellow line) and biomass of the Atlantic cod stock in the Barents Sea (red line) (ICES 2016). The blue line is the biomass of the Barents Sea polar cod (Prozorkevich 2016). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-fishes" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 116 - Box figure 3.4.1

Harvest marine mammal Focal Ecosystem Component stocks in Arctic Marine Areas. Harvested without quotas, with quotas or not harvested. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-mammals" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 158 - Figure 3.6.4

Assessment of monitoring implementation STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-mammals" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 168 - Table 3.6.2

Workflow of the Circumpolar Biodiversity Monitoring Program (CBMP). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine" target="_blank">Chapter 1</a> - Page 13 - Figure 1.1

Status of monitoring activities for each Focal Ecosystem Component (i.e., selected species groups) across each Arctic Marine Area as included in this report. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/monitoring-status-and-advice" target="_blank">Key Findings</a> - Page 5 - Figure 1

Temperature and copepod abundance in Zackenberg, northeastern Greenland. Temperature is measured at 80 m for Microcalanus and 5 m for Pseudocalanus (Arendt et al. 2016). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/plankton" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 76 - Figure 3.2.7

Multi-decadal time series of A) abundance (individuals m-2) and B) biomass (g wet weight m-2) of ice amphipods from 1977 to 2012 across the Arctic. Bars and error bars indicate median and median absolute deviation (MAD) values for each year, respectively. Numbers above bars represent number of sampling efforts (n). Modified from Hop et al. (2013). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 45 - Figure 3.1.7 From the report draft: "The only available time-series of sympagic biota is based on composite data of ice-amphipod abundance and biomass estimates from the 1980s to present across the Arctic, with most observations from the Svalbard and Fram Strait region (Hop et al. 2013). Samples were obtained by SCUBA divers who collected amphipods quantitatively with electrical suction pumps under the sea ice (Lønne & Gulliksen 1991a, b, Hop & Pavlova 2008)."

Ice algal community similarity of central Russian Arctic drifting stations from the 1980s to 2010s based on unpublished data by I.A. Melnikov, Shirshov Institute of Oceanology. The closer two samples (symbols) are to each other in this multi-dimensional scaling plot, the more similar their algal communities were, based on presence/absence of algal species. Samples from the same year tend to be similar and group together on the plot, with some exceptions. Dispersion across the plot suggests that community structure has changed over the decades, although sampling locations in the central Arctic have also shifted, thus introducing bias. An analysis of similarity (PRIMER version 6) with a high Global R=0.80 indicates strong community difference among decades (global R=0 indicates no difference, R=1 indicates complete dissimilarity). Regional differences were low (global R=0.26) and difference by ice type moderate (global R=0.38). Grey arrows point to the very different and only two samples from 2013. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 47 - Figure 3.1.8 "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."

Seasonal abundance (1000 individuals m- 2) of sea ice meiofauna at landfast sea ice (Barrow, 2005-2006, A and C) and pack ice (North of Svalbard, 2015, B and D). A and B show larval stages (polychaete juveniles and nauplii, respectively), while C and D show nematodes and harpacticoid copepods, respectively. Circles represent individual cores (n = 107 for A and C, and 39 for B and D), shading the extent of minimum as well as maximum values, and blue line indicates mean values. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 43 - Figure 3.1.5 From the report draft: "In addition to showing composition and peak abundance ranges, we illustrate the phenology of ice meiofauna over the ice-covered season in the entire combined data set. For this purpose, the data were normalized to the daylight hours at each location during the date of sampling using R package geosphere (Hijmans 2015) and a method described in Forsythe et al. (1995). This was necessary, because ‘spring’ arrives earlier at lower latitudes than at higher latitudes, so that using month or day of year would obscure the pan-Arctic integration of the data. Other influential factors such as snow depth, ice thickness and nutrient concentrations were not accounted for in this analysis."