Figure 2-1 The CBMP takes an adaptive Integrated Ecosystem based Approach to monitoring and data creation. This figure illustrates how management questions, conceptual ecosystem models based on science and Traditional Knowledge (TK), and existing monitoring networks are designed to guide the four CBMP Steering Groups (marine, freshwater, terrestrial, and coastal) in their development. Monitoring outputs (data) are designed to feed into the assessment and decision-making processes (data, communication and reporting). The findings are then intended to feed back into the monitoring program. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 2 - Page 15 - Figure 2-1

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

Temporal trends of arthropod abundance for three habitat types at Zackenberg Research Station, Greenland, 1996–2016. Data are grouped as the FEC ‘arthropod prey for vertebrates’ and separated by habitat type. Solid lines indicate significant regression lines at the p<0.05. Modified from Gillespie et al. 2020a. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 39 - Figure 3.9

Trends and distribution of muskoxen populations based on Table 3-5. Modified from Cuyler et al. 2020. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 79 - Figure 3.30

Temporal patterns in % abundance of Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and anadromous Arctic charr from catch statistics in northern Norway rivers monitored from 1993 to 2016, including basins dominated by (a) rivers and (b) lakes. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 81- Figure 4-42

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

Alpha diversity (rarefied to 10 stations, with error bars indicating standard error) of littoral lake benthic macroinvertebrates plotted as a function of the average latitude of stations in each hydrobasin. Hydrobasins are coloured by country/region. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4- Page 68 - Figure 4-31

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.

Figure 4 23 Species richness of aquatic macrophytes excluding mosses and algae in five geographic regions of the Arctic. Ame = North America, Fen = Fennoscandia, Far = Faroes, Ice = Iceland, Gre = Greenland. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 55 - Figure 4-22

Phytoplankton species richness averaged by time periods ±SE in each Arctic region. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 49 - Figure 4-20