Orgination of macrophyte data (axis labels should be changed from Dim1 to Axis I and from Dim2 to Axis II), with symbols/colours differing by region. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 3 - Page 55 - Figure 4-24

Figure 3-3 Long-term trends in total phosphorus water concentrations (μg/L) in four major, unregulated rivers that drain the subarctic Arctic/alpine ecoregion of the Scandinavian peninsula, the Kalix river, The Lule river, the Råne river, and the Torne river. Slopes and p-values are given in the different panels. Boxes indicate medians and 25th and 75th percentiles, while whiskers give the 10th and 90th percentiles. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 3 - Page 21 - Figure 3-3

Provides richness estimates and 95% confidence bounds for five ecoregions. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 77 - Figure 4-38

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

Box-plots of taxa richness (average per lake) by Arctic regions for rotifers (left) and crustaceans (right). Crustacean taxa are restricted to taxa within Calanoida, Cyclopoida and Cladocera. Samples with only a single taxon have been excluded. Boxes represent median and interquartile range. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 60 - Figure 4-27

Circumpolar Arctic distribution of Cyanophyceae using presence- absence data from all sites sampled between 1980-2015. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 50 - Figure 4-21

Results of circumpolar assessment of lake zooplankton, focused just on crustaceans, and indicating (a) the location of crustacean zooplankton stations, underlain by circumpolar ecoregions; (b) ecoregions with many crustacean zooplankton stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 25 stations; (c) all ecoregions with crustacean zooplankton 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 58 - Figure 4-25

Results of circumpolar assessment of river diatoms, indicating (a) the location of river diatom stations, underlain by circumpolar ecoregions; (b) ecoregions with many river diatom stations, colored on the basis of alpha diversity rarefied to 40 stations; (c) all ecoregions with river diatom 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 36 - Figure 4-8

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

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