Change in forb, graminoid and shrub abundance by species or functional group over time based on local field studies across the Arctic, ranging from 5 to 43 years of duration. The bars show the proportion of observed decreasing, stable and increasing change in abundance, based on published studies. The darker portions of each bar represent a significant decrease, stable state, or increase, and lighter shading represents marginally significant change. The numbers above each bar indicate the number of observations in that group. Modified from Bjorkman et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 31- Figure 3.2

Figure 4-7 Circumpolar assessment of lake diatoms, indicating (a) the location of lake diatom stations, underlain by circumpolar ecoregions; (b) ecoregions with many lake diatom stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 40 stations; (c) all ecoregions with lake diatom stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 10 stations; (d) ecoregions with at least two stations in a hydrobasin, colored on the basis of the dominant component of beta diversity (i.e. species turnover, nestedness, approximately equal contribution, or no diversity) when averaged across hydrobasins in each ecoregio. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 35 - Figure 4-7

Temporal patterns in % abundance of Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and anadromous Arctic charr from catch statistics in northern Norway rivers monitored from 1993 to 2016, including basins dominated by (a) rivers and (b) lakes. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 81- Figure 4-42

Average relative abundance of the main zooplankton groups (calanoid copepods, cyclopoid copepods, cladocerans) for the sub-Arctic (n=150), low- Arctic (n=154), and high-Arctic (n=55) regions. Samples with a single taxon have been excluded. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 61 - Figure 4-28

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

Results of circumpolar assessment of lake zooplankton, focused just on crustaceans, and indicating (a) the location of crustacean zooplankton stations, underlain by circumpolar ecoregions; (b) ecoregions with many crustacean zooplankton stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 25 stations; (c) all ecoregions with crustacean zooplankton stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 10 stations; (d) ecoregions with at least two stations in a hydrobasin, colored on the basis of the dominant component of beta diversity (species turnover, nestedness, approximately equal contribution, or no diversity) when averaged across hydrobasins in each ecoregion. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 58 - Figure 4-25

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.

Summary of the taxa accounting for 85% of the lake littoral benthic macroinvertebrates collected in each of several highly-sampled geographic areas, with taxa grouped by order level or higher in pie charts placed spatially to indicate sampling area. Pie charts correspond to (1) Alaska, (2) Greenland low Arctic, (3) Iceland, and (4) Fennoscandia. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 69 - Figure 4-33

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

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.