Sea ice amphipod (macrofauna) distribution and abundance across the Arctic aggregated from 47 sources between 1977 and 2012 by the CBMP Sea Ice Biota Expert Network. Bar graphs illustrate the frequency of occurrence (%) of amphipods in samples that contained at least one ice-associated amphipod. Red circles illustrate the total abundances of all ice-associated amphipods in quantitative samples (individuals m-2) at locations of sampling for each Arctic Marine Area (AMA). Number of sampling efforts for each region is given in parenthesis after region name. Blue dots represent samples where only presence/ absence data were available and where amphipods were present. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 44 - Figure 3.1.6 From the report draft: "This summary includes 47 data sources of under-ice amphipods published between 1977 and 2012. When available, we collected information on abundance or density (ind. m-2, or ind. m-3 that were converted to ind. m-2) and biomass (g m-2, wet weight). If abundance or biomass data were not available, we examined presence/relative abundance information. Frequency of occurrence was calculated for regions across the Arctic using integrated data for all available years."

Status of marine mammal Focal Ecosystem Component stocks by Arctic Marine Area. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-mammals" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 157 - Figure 3.6.3

Trends in abundance of seabird Focal Ecosystem Components across each Arctic Marine Area. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 181 - Figure 4.5

Global catches of Greenland halibut (FAO 2015). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-fishes" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 121 - Figure 3.4.8

Sea ice provides a wide range of microhabitats for diverse biota including microbes, single-celled eukaryotes (labelled algae), multicellular meiofauna, larger under-ice fauna (represented by amphipods), as well as polar cod (Boreogadus saida). Modified from Bluhm et al. (2017). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 35 - Figure 3.1.1

Trends in biomass of marine fish Focal Ecosystem Components across each Arctic Marine Area STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 180 - Figure 4.4

Trends in kittiwake colonies 2001-2010, based on linear regression with year as the explanatory variable. Slope of the regression is red = negative trend, blue = positive trend; shaded circle = significant trend (at p<0.05), open circle = non-significant trend. Non-significant deviation from zero could imply a stable population, but in some cases was due to low sample size and low power. Provided with permission from Descamps et al. (in prep). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/seabirds" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 135 - Figure 3.5.3 This figure is compiled from data from researchers working throughout circumpolar regions, primarily members of the Circumpolar Seabird Group, an EN of CAFF/seabirds. Dr. Sebastien Decamps conducted the analysis and produced the original figure; the full results will be available in an article in prep titled: “Descamps et al. in prep. Circumpolar dynamics of black-legged kittiwakes track large-scale environmental shifts and oceans' warming rate.” [expected submission spring 2016]. Colony population trends were analyzed using a linear regression with the year as explanatory variable. Based on slope of the regression (which cannot be exactly 0) colonies are either Declining (Slope of the regression <0) or Increasing (Slope of the regression >0). (Colonies may have had a negative but not significant slope, and could be stable but for some others, the slope is not significant due to small sample size / low power; thus we cannot say that all colonies with a non- significant slope are stable. The threshold was put at 5% to assess the significance of the trend.

Commercial fishery impact on zoobenthos of the Barents Sea. Figure A) Intensity and duration of fishery efforts in standard commercial fishery areas in the Barents Sea. The darker the area the longer the fishery has been in operation. Figure B) Level of decline in macrobenthic biomass between 1926-1932 and 1968-1970 calculated as 1-b1968/b1930. The largest biomass decreases correspond to the darker colour, whereas lighter colour refers to no change (Denisenko 2013). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 97 - Figure 3.3.4

Megafauna distribution of biomass (g/15 min trawling) in the Barents Sea in 2007, 2011 and 2015. The green circles show the distribution of the snow crab as it spreads from east to west, and the blue triangles show the invasion of king crab along the coast of the southern Barents Sea. Data from Institute of Marine Research, Norway and the Polar Research Institute of Marine Fisheries and Oceanography, Murmansk, Russia. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 95 - Figure 3.3.2 The annual joint Norwegian–Russian Ecosystem Survey provides from more than 400 stations and during extensive cruise tracks covering more or less the whole Barents Sea in August– September. The sampling is based on a regular grid spanning about 1.5 millionkm2 with fixed positions of stations which make it possible to measure changes in spatial distribution over time. The trawl is a Campelen 1800 bottom trawl rigged with rock-hopper groundgear and towed on double Warps. The mesh size is 80 mm (stretched) in the front and 16–22 mmin the cod end, allowing the capture and retention of smaller fish and the largest benthos from the seabed (benthic megafauna). The horizontal opening was 11.7 m, and the vertical opening 4–5 m (Teigsmark and Øynes, 1982). The trawl configuration and bottom contact was monitored remotely by SCANMAR trawl sensors. The standard distance between trawl stations was 35 nautical miles (65 km), except north and west of Svalbard where a stratified sampling was adapted to the steep continental shelve. The standard procedure was to tow 15 min after the trawl had made contact with the bottom, but the actual tow duration ranged between 5 min and 1 h and data were subsequently standardized to 15 min trawl time. Towing speed was 3 knots, equivalent to a towing distance of 0.75 nautical miles (1.4 km) during a 15 min tow. The trawl catches were recorded using the same procedures on the Russian and the Norwegian Research vessels to ensure comparability across Barents Sea regions. The benthic megafauna was separated from the fish and shrimp catch, washed, and sorted to lowest possible taxonomic level, in most cases to species, on-Board the vessel. Species identification was standardized between the researcher teams by annually exchanging the benthic expert’s among the vessels and taxon names were fixed each year according toWORMSwhen possible.This resulted in an Electronic identification manual and photo-compendium as a tool to standardize taxon identifications, in addition to various sources of identification literature. Difficult taxa were photographed and, in some cases, brought back as preserved voucher specimens for further identification. Wet-weight biomass was recorded with electronic scales in the ship laboratories for each taxon.The biomass determination included all fragments.

Multi-decadal time series of A) abundance (individuals m-2) and B) biomass (g wet weight m-2) of ice amphipods from 1977 to 2012 across the Arctic. Bars and error bars indicate median and median absolute deviation (MAD) values for each year, respectively. Numbers above bars represent number of sampling efforts (n). Modified from Hop et al. (2013). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 45 - Figure 3.1.7 From the report draft: "The only available time-series of sympagic biota is based on composite data of ice-amphipod abundance and biomass estimates from the 1980s to present across the Arctic, with most observations from the Svalbard and Fram Strait region (Hop et al. 2013). Samples were obtained by SCUBA divers who collected amphipods quantitatively with electrical suction pumps under the sea ice (Lønne & Gulliksen 1991a, b, Hop & Pavlova 2008)."