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

Fish species observations from Traditional Knowledge (TK ) literature, plotted in the approximate geographic location of observed record, with symbol colour indicating the number of fish species recorded and shape indicating the approximate time period of observation. Results are from a systematic literature search of TK sources from Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Fennoscandia, and Russia. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 75- Figure 4-37

Benthic macro-infauna biomass in the northern Bering and Chukchi Seas from 1970 to 2012, displayed as decadal pattern Adapted from Grebmeier et al. (2015a) with permission from Elsevier. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 98 - Figure 3.3.6 Cumulative scores of benthos drivers for each of the 8 CAFF-AMAs. The cumulative scores are taken from the last column of Table 3.3.1. The flower chart/plot helps to visualize the data.

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

Figure 2-2 Arctic freshwater boundaries from the Arctic Council’s Arctic Biodiversity Assessment developed by CAFF, showing the three sub-regions of the Arctic, namely the high (dark purple), low (purple) and sub-Arctic (light purple)

The Arctic Basin where suggested future long-term monitoring of trawl-megafauna should capture possible changes along the flow of the Arctic Circumpolar Boundary Current (Figure A, blue line) and the Arctic deep-water exchange (Figure b, green line). Adapted from Bluhm et al. (2015). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 88 - Figure 3.3.1

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