Boundaries of the 22 ecoregions (grey lines) as defined in the CSMP (Irons et al. 2015) and the Arctic Marine Areas (colored polygons with names in legend). Filled circles show locations of seabird colony sites recommended for monitoring (‘key sites’). The current level of monitoring plan implementation are green = fully implemented, amber = partially implemented, red = not implemented. The CSMP provides implementation maps for each forage guild. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/seabirds" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 132 - Figure 3.5.1 This graphic displays the status of seabird monitoring at key sites in CBMP areas across the Arctic.

In 2017, the SAMBR synthesized data about biodiversity in Arctic marine ecosystems around the circumpolar Arctic. SAMBR highlighted observed changes and relevant monitoring gaps using data compiled through 2015. In 2021 an update was provided on the status of seabirds in circumpolar Arctic using data from 2016–2019. Most changes reflect access to improved population estimates, orimproved data for monitoring trends,independent of recognized trends in population size.

Maximum LTA (long-term average) August air temperatures for the circumpolar region, with ecoregions used in the analysis of the SAFBR outlined in black. Source for temperature layer: Fick and Hijmans (2017). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 5 - Page 89 - Figure 5-5

Bacteria and Archaea across five Arctic Marine Areas based on number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs), or molecular species. Composition of microbial groups, with respective numbers of OTUs (pie charts) and number of OTUs at sampling locations (red dots). Data aggregated by the CBMP Sea Ice Biota Expert Network. Data source: National Center for Biotechnology Information’s (NCBI 2017) Nucleotide and PubMed databases. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 38 - Figure 3.1.2 From the report draft: "Synthesis of available data was performed by using searches conducted in the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s “Nucleotide” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/guide/data-software/) and “PubMed” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) databases. Aligned DNA sequences were downloaded and clustered into OTUs by maximum likelihood phylogenetic placement."

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

Numbers and taxonomic composition of five single-celled eukaryote groups for the regional divisions of the Arctic Marine Areas (pie charts), as well as the number of data sources reviewed across the Arctic (red circles). Total number of taxa is given in parenthesis after each region. Flagellates include: chlorophytes, chrysophytes, cryptophytes, dictyochophytes, euglenids, prasinophytes, prymnesiophytes, raphidophytes, synurales, and xanthophytes, and- for practical purposes though not flagellates - cyanophytes. Heterotrophs include: choanoflagellates, kinetoplastea, incertae sedis. Updated from Poulin et al. (2011). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 39- Figure 3.1.3 From the report draft: "For a pan-Arctic assessment of diversity (here defined as species richness), the first comprehensive assessments of this FEC from a few years ago (Poulin et al. 2011, Daniëls et al. 2013) have been updated for regions, with taxonomic names standardized according to the World Register of Marine Species (www.marinespecies.org). 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."

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

Time series of relative proportions of Arctic and Atlantic Calanus species in Kongsfjorden (top) and Rijpfjorden (bottom) (Source: MOSJ, Norwegian Polar Institute). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/plankton" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 77 - Figure 3.2.8

Figure 4 22 Results of circumpolar assessment of lake macrophytes, indicating (a) the location of macrophyte stations, underlain by circumpolar ecoregions; (b) ecoregions with many macrophyte stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 70 stations; (c) all ecoregions with macrophyte 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 54 - Figure 4-22

Rates of change among different terrestrial parameters, using average annual standardised data for the pan-Arctic. *identifies parameters with statistically significant trends. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 95 - Figure 3.33