Circumpolar permafrost extent overlain on ecoregions used in SAFBR analysis, indicating continuous (90-100%), discontinuous (50-90%), sporadic (10-50%), and isolated (0-10%) permafrost extent. Source for permafrost layer: Brown et al. (2002). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 5 - Page 89 - Figure 5-6

Figure 3-6. The hypothesized effects of rising mean water temperature on biodiversity (as total species number) of Arctic freshwater ecosystems. A pulsed increase in gamma biodiversity (a) results from the combination of high eurythermal invasion and establishment and low stenothermic loss with increasing water temperature. A pulsed decrease in gamma biodiversity (b) results from the combination of low eurythermal invasion and establishment and high stenothermic loss. Rapid increases (c) and slow increases (d) in species diversity occur, respectively, with high eurythermal invasion and establishment coupled with high stenothermic loss or low eurythermal invasion and establishment and low stenothermic loss as temperatures increase. For simplification, barriers to dispersal have been assumed to be limited in these models. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 3 - Page 23 - Figure 3-6

Temporal patterns in % abundance of Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and anadromous Arctic charr from catch statistics in Iceland rivers monitored from 1992 to 2016, showing results from (a) west, (b) south, (c) north, and (d) east Iceland. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 81 - Figure 4-41

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 6-2 Current state of monitoring for river FECs in each Arctic country State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 6 - Page 94 - Figure 6-2

Spatial distribution of hillslope thermokarst across the circumpolar area, overlain with ecoregions used in the SAFBR analysis, showing no, low, moderate, and high thermokarst. Source for thermokarst layer: Olefeldt et al. (2016) State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 90 - Figure 5-7

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

Figure 3-5 Changes in alpha diversity (red line), predator body size (blue dashed line), and ecosystem metabolism (blue solid line) with a shift in glacial cover from high (left) to low (right). Redrawn from Milner et al. (2017). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 3 - Page 22 - Figure 3-5

Estimation of diatom assemblage changes over a period of about 200 years (top versus bottom sediment cores). Figure 4-14 Map showing the magnitude of change in diatom assemblages between bottom (pre-industrial) and top (modern) section of the cores, estimated by Bray-Curtis (B-C) dissimilarity. Boundaries for the B-C dissimilarity categories are based on distribution quartiles (0-30%, 30-40%, 40- 50% and >50%), where the lowest values (blue dots) represent the lowest degree of change in diatom assemblage composition between top and bottom sediment core samples in each lake. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 41 - Figure 4-14

Figure 4 12 Diatom groups from Self Organizing Maps (SOMs) in lake top sediments, showing the geographical distribution of each group (with colors representing different SOM groups). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 39 - Figure 4-12

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