The Arctic terrestrial food web includes the exchange of energy and nutrients. Arrows to and from the driver boxes indicate the relative effect and counter effect of different types of drivers on the ecosystem. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 2 - Page 26- Figure 2.4

Marine primary productivity is not available from the NASA Ocean Color website. Currently the best product available for marine primary productivity is available through Oregon State University’s Ocean Productivity Project. A monthly global Net Primary Productivity product at 9 km spatial resolution has been selected for this analysis. The algorithm used to create the primary productivity is a Vertically Generalized Production Model (VGPM) created by Behrenfeld and Falkowski (1997). It is a “chlorophyll-based” model that estimates net primary production from chlorophyll using a temperature-dependent description of chlorophyll photosynthetic efficiency (O’Malley 2010). Inputs to the function are chlorophyll, available light, and photosynthetic efficiency.

Geographic area covered by the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment and the CBMP–Terrestrial Plan. Subzones A to E are depicted as defined in the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map (CAVM Team 2003). Subzones A, B and C are the high Arctic while subzones D and E are the low Arctic. Definition of high Arctic, low Arctic, and sub-Arctic follow Hohn & Jaakkola 2010. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 1 - Page 14 - Figure 1.2

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

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

Trends in four muscid species occurring at Zackenberg Research Station, east Greenland, 1996–2014. Declines were detected in several species over five or more years. Significant regression lines drawn as solid. Non-significant as dotted lines. Modified from Gillespie et al. 2020a. (in the original figure six species showed a statistically significant decline, seven a non-significant decline and one species a non-significant rise) STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 39 - Figure 3.11

Circumpolar trends in primary productivity as indicated by the maximum Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, 1982–2017. (a) Brown shading indicates negative MaxNDVI trends, green shading indicates positive MaxNDVI trends. (b) Chart of trends for the circumpolar Arctic, Eurasia, and North America. Modified from Frost et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 30 - Figure 3.1

Trend quality categories are: (1) data are lacking such that trends are unknown, (2) regional and site-specific monitoring allow for assumptions of trend, (3) international monitoring allows estimation of trend direction, and (4) rigorously designed international monitoring programmes yield estimates of precision. Modified from Smith et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapte31 - Page 59 - Figure 3.26

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

Temporal trends of arthropod abundance, 1996–2009. Estimated by the number of individuals caught per trap per day during the season from four different pitfall trap plots, each consisting of eight (1996–2006) or four (2007–2009) traps. Modified from Høye et al. 2013. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 41 - Figure 3.16