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

Phytoplankton percent composition by dominant classes across the three Arctic regions, using relative presence across stations calculated from from presence – absence data. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 48 - Figure 4-19

Estimation of diatom assemblage changes over a period of about 200 years (top versus bottom sediment cores). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 41 - Figure 4-14

The baseline survey and ongoing monitoring required to adequately describe Arctic arthropod biodiversity and to identify trends is largely lacking. Although some existing publications reporting long-term and extensive sampling exist, they are limited in species level information, taxonomic coverage and/or geographic location/extent (Figure 3-19) STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 44 - Figure 3.19

Abundance of the copepod Calanus glacialis in the Chukchi Sea, 1945-2012 (after Ershova et al. 2015b). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/plankton" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 75 - Figure 3.2.6

Fish diversity characteristics in three geographical regions: Alaska, Iceland, and Fennoscandia. Gamma diversity is based the total number of species sampled in hydrobasins of each ecoregion. Alpha diversity shows the mean basin species richness (95% confidence interval) and beta diversity shows the component of beta diversity, nestedness or turnover, that dominated within each of the ecoregions; gamma, alpha, and beta diversity estimates were based on a subset of basins where a minimum of 10 stations were sampled. All maps are drawn to the same scale. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 77 - Figure 4-39

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

Figure 4 17 Results of circumpolar assessment of lake phytoplankton,(a) the location of phytoplankton stations, underlain by circumpolar ecoregions; (b) ecoregions with many phytoplankton stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 35 stations; (c) all ecoregions with phytoplankton 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 56 - Figure 4-17

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

Conceptual model of Arctic terrestrial mammals, showing FECs, interactions with other biotic groups and examples of drivers and attributes relevant at various spatial scales. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 67 - Figure 3.28