Macrofauna distribution of biomass (g wet fixed weight m-2) in the Barents Sea over three time periods: 1924-32 (Figure A), 1968-70 (Figure B) and 2003 (Figure C, constructed from original archive data, except for area south of 72° N where digitized megafaunal-data taken from Anisimova et al. (2010) was used. Adapted from Denisenko (2013). Blue boxes delineate the areas within which the zoobenthos biomass values were compared. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/benthos" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 96- Figure 3.3.3

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

Figure 4-13 Number of deep lakes (red), shallow lakes (blue), and ponds (brown) in each geographical zone (BF, T, LA, HA). BF = Boreal Forest, T =Transition Zone, LA = Low Arctic, HA = High Arctic. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 40 - Figure 4-13

Lemmings are currently being monitored at 38 sites. Their status and trends were determined based on data from these sites as well as recent data (since 2000) from an additional 11 previous monitoring sites (Figure 3-31). Of those sites monitored, Fennoscandia is overrepresented relative to the geographical area it covers, whereas Russia is underrepresented. Based on the skewed geographical coverage, more information is available for some species of lemmings than others, particularly the Norwegian lemming. STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 80 - Figure 3.31

Figure 3.2.1a: Map of high throughput sequencing records from the Arctic Marine Areas. Figure 3.2.1b: Map of records of phytoplankton taxa using microscopy from the Arctic Marine Areas. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/plankton" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 35 - Figure 3.2.1a and Figure 3.2.1b In terms of stations sampled, the greatest sampling effort of high-throughput sequencing in Arctic marine water columns, by far, has been in the Beaufort Sea/Amundsen Gulf region and around Svalbard. High through-put sequencing has also been used on samples from the Chukchi Sea, Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay, the Greenland Sea and Laptev Sea.

Number of non-native plant taxa that have become naturalised across the Arctic. No naturalised non-native taxa are recorded from Wrangel Island, Ellesmere Land – northern Greenland, Anabar-Olenyok and Frans Josef Land. Modified from Wasowicz et al. 2020 STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 32 - Figure 3.4

Trends in Arctic terrestrial bird population abundance for four taxonomic groupings in four global flyways. Data are presented as total number of taxa (species, subspecies). Modified from Smith et al. 2020. These broad patterns were generally consistent across flyways, with some exceptions. Fewer waterfowl populations increased in the Central Asian and East Asian–Australasian Flyways. The largest proportion of declining species was among the waders in all but the Central Asian Flyway where the trends of a large majority of waders are unknown. Although declines were more prevalent among waders than other taxonomic groups in both the African–Eurasian and Americas Flyways, the former had a substantially larger number of stable and increasing species than the latter (Figure 3-23). STATE OF THE ARCTIC TERRESTRIAL BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 3 - Page 55 - Figure 3.23

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

Trends in abundance of plankton Focal Ecosystem Components across each Arctic Marine Area. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - Chapter 4 - Page 178 - Figure 4.2

Temporal patterns in % abundance of Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and anadromous Arctic charr from catch statistics in Iceland rivers monitored from 1992 to 2016, showing results from (a) west, (b) south, (c) north, and (d) east Iceland. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 81 - Figure 4-41