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

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

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

Circumpolar permafrost extent overlain on ecoregions used in SAFBR analysis, indicating continuous (90-100%), discontinuous (50-90%), sporadic (10-50%), and isolated (0-10%) permafrost extent. Source for permafrost layer: Brown et al. (2002). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 5 - Page 89 - Figure 5-6

Summary of the taxa accounting for 85% of the lake littoral benthic macroinvertebrates collected in each of several highly-sampled geographic areas, with taxa grouped by order level or higher in pie charts placed spatially to indicate sampling area. Pie charts correspond to (1) Alaska, (2) Greenland low Arctic, (3) Iceland, and (4) Fennoscandia. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 69 - Figure 4-33

Abiotic drivers in North America, including (a) long-term average maximum August air temperature, (b) spatial distribution of ice sheets in the last glaciation of the North American Arctic region, and (c) geological setting of bedrock geology underlying North America. Panel (a) source Fick and Hijmans (2017). Panel (b) adapted from: Physical Geology by Steve Earle, freely available at http://open.bccampus.ca. Panel (c) source: Geogratis. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 5 - Page 86 - Figure 5-3

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 6-1 Current state of monitoring for lake FECs in each Arctic country. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 6 - Page 93 - Figure 6-1

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 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

Summary of the taxa accounting for 85% of the river benthic macroinvertebrates collected in each of several highly-sampled geographic areas, with taxa grouped by order level or higher in pie charts placed spatially to indicate sampling area. Pie charts correspond to (1) Alaska, (2) western Canada, (3) southern Canada, south of Hudson Bay, (4) northern Labrador, (5) Baffin Island, (6) Ellesmere Island, (7) Greenland high Arctic, (8) Greenland low Arctic, (9) Iceland, (10) Svalbard, and (11) Fennoscandia. State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 70 - Figure 4-34