Vegetation monitoring occurs across the Arctic, but the duration of monitoring efforts is variable and is dependent upon both study design and access to resources. Although many field studies on vegetation have been conducted in the Arctic (Figure 3-5), not all can be considered monitoring since some recorded only select measurements over limited time frames. Studies reporting on abundance and composition of vegetation reflect a larger and more widespread geographical coverage than the typically more site-limited and time-consuming phenology studies (Figure 3-5). Geographical gaps in coverage of Siberia and large parts of the Canadian Arctic are evident. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 34 - Figure 3.5

The baseline survey and ongoing monitoring required to adequately describe Arctic arthropod biodiversity and to identify trends is largely lacking. Although some existing publications reporting long-term and extensive sampling exist, they are limited in species level information, taxonomic coverage and/or geographic location/extent (Figure 3-19) STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 44 - Figure 3.19

Several smaller populations of caribou inhabit sub-Arctic portions of Alaska, including five populations along the Aleutian Archipelago and west coast. These populations are considered part of the migratory tundra ecotype based on genetics, although in some instances their ecology and habitat are similar to the mountain caribou ecotype found in western Canada. Population dynamics and trends for these populations are variable (Figure 3-29). They are managed by the Alaska Department of Fish and Game through hunting quotas. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 72 - Figure 3.29

There is a great variation and heterogeneity among terrestrial Arctic ecosystems. This is further described as biogeographical areas in the Annotated Checklist of the Pan-Arctic Flora (Elven et al. 2020), as vegetation zones (Walker et al. 2005, Raynolds et al 2019) or as ecoregions recognised by Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World (Olson et al. 2001). The START focuses on high and low Arctic regions consistent with the CAVM’s subzones A to E, as shown in Figure 1-2 and Figure 2-1 STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 2 - Page 19 - Figure 2.1

Abiotic drivers in North America, including (a) long-term average maximum August air temperature, (b) spatial distribution of ice sheets in the last glaciation of the North American Arctic region, and (c) geological setting of bedrock geology underlying North America. Panel (a) source Fick and Hijmans (2017). Panel (b) adapted from: Physical Geology by Steve Earle, freely available at http://open.bccampus.ca. Panel (c) source: Geogratis. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 5 - Page 86 - Figure 5-3

Appenidx 17.1. Selected phylogenetic studies of (or including) Arctic taxa.

Global catches of all capelin species from 1950 to 2011 (FAO 2015). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-fishes" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 119 - Figure 3.4.6

Conceptual model of the FECs and processes mediated by more than 2,500 species of Arctic arthropods known from Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, and Jan Mayen. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 37- Figure 3.7

Alpha diversity (rarefied to 10 stations, with error bars indicating standard error) of littoral lake benthic macroinvertebrates plotted as a function of the average latitude of stations in each hydrobasin. Hydrobasins are coloured by country/region. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4- Page 68 - Figure 4-31

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 6-1 Current state of monitoring for lake FECs in each Arctic country. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 6 - Page 93 - Figure 6-1