Ice algal community similarity of central Russian Arctic drifting stations from the 1980s to 2010s based on unpublished data by I.A. Melnikov, Shirshov Institute of Oceanology. The closer two samples (symbols) are to each other in this multi-dimensional scaling plot, the more similar their algal communities were, based on presence/absence of algal species. Samples from the same year tend to be similar and group together on the plot, with some exceptions. Dispersion across the plot suggests that community structure has changed over the decades, although sampling locations in the central Arctic have also shifted, thus introducing bias. An analysis of similarity (PRIMER version 6) with a high Global R=0.80 indicates strong community difference among decades (global R=0 indicates no difference, R=1 indicates complete dissimilarity). Regional differences were low (global R=0.26) and difference by ice type moderate (global R=0.38). Grey arrows point to the very different and only two samples from 2013. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 47 - Figure 3.1.8 "For the analysis of possible interannual trends in the ice algal community, we used a data set from the Central Arctic, the area most consistently and frequently sampled (Melnikov 2002, I. Melnikov, Shirshov Institute, unpubl. data). Multivariate community structure was analysed based on a presence-absence matrix of cores from 1980 to 2013. The analysis is biased by the varying numbers of analysed cores taken per year ranging widely from 1 to 24, ice thickness between 0.6 and 4.2 m, and including both first-year as well as multiyear sea ice. Locations included were in a bounding box within 74.9 to 90.0 °N and 179.9°W to 176.6°E and varied among years."

Status of marine mammal Focal Ecosystem Component stocks by Arctic Marine Area. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-mammals" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 157 - Figure 3.6.3

Critical to the successful implementation of EBM in the Arctic is the existence of a cohesive circumpolar approach to the collection and management of data and the application of compatible frameworks, standards and protocols that this entails. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine" target="_blank">Chapter 2</a> - Page 29 - Box Figure 2.2

Global catches of all capelin species from 1950 to 2011 (FAO 2015). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-fishes" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 119 - Figure 3.4.6

The number of key sites (monitored colonies) for seabirds (in 22 CSMP ecoregions) by country (a total of 125 sites). Sites are categorized as having fully, partially, or not met the CSMP criteria for parameters monitored (see 2.6.2). Data were from Appendix 3 of the CSMP (Irons et al. 2015); the degree of implementation may have changed at some sites since this summary was compiled. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/seabirds" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 134 - Figure 3.5.2

EBSAs (Source: CBD 2016) and marine “areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance” (Source: AMAP/CAFF/SDWG, 2013). In 2013, the Arctic Council identified “Areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance” using the International Maritime Organization criteria for Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs), which are similar to the CBD Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs) criteria. The term “areas of heightened ecological and cultural significance” comes from Recommendation IIC of the Arctic Council’s 2009 Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment: ARCTIC PROTECTED AREAS - INDICATOR REPORT 2017

Sea ice meiofauna composition (pie charts) and total abundance (red circles) across the Arctic, compiled by the CBMP Sea Ice Biota Expert Network from 27 studies between 1979 and 2015. Scaled circles show total abundance per individual ice core while pie charts show average relative contribution by taxon per Arctic Marine Area (AMA). Number of ice cores for each AMA is given in parenthesis after region name. Note that studies were conducted at different times of the year, with the majority between March and August (see 3.1 Appendix). The category ‘other’ includes young stages of bristle worms (Polychaeta), mussel shrimps (Ostracoda), forams (Foraminifera), hydroid polyps (Cnidaria), comb jellies (Ctenophora), sea butterflies (Pteropoda), marine mites (Acari) and unidentified organisms. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 40 - Figure 3.1.4 From the report draft: "Here, we synthesized 19 studies across the Arctic conducted between 1979 and 2015, including unpublished sources (B. Bluhm, R. Gradinger, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway; H. Hop, Norwegian Polar Institute; K. Iken, University of Alaska Fairbanks). These studies sampled landfast sea ice and offshore pack ice, both first- and multiyear ice (Appendix 3.1). Meiofauna abundances reported in individual data sources were converted to individuals m-2 of sea ice assuming that ice density was 95% of that in melted ice. Due to the low taxonomic resolution in the reviewed studies, ice meiofauna were grouped into: Copepoda, nauplii (for copepods as well as other taxa with naupliar stages), Nematoda, Polychaeta (mostly juveniles, but also trochophores), flatworms (Acoelomorpha and Platyhelminthes; these phyla have mostly been reported as one category), Rotifera, and others (which include meroplanktonic larvae other than Polychaeta, Ostracoda, Foraminifera, Cnidaria, Ctenophora, Pteropoda, Acari, and unidentified organisms). Percentage of total abundance for each group was calculated for each ice core, and these percentages were used for regional averages. Maximum available ice core length was used in data analysis, but 50% of these ice cores included only the bottom 10 cm of the ice, 12% the bottom 5 cm, 10% the bottom 2 cm, and 11% the entire ice-thickness. Data from 617 cores were used."

Circumpolar map of known polynyas. Note that polynyas are dynamic systems and some may no longer exist in the form known from their recent history. Adapted from Meltofte (2013) and based on Barber and Massom (2007). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine" target="_blank">Chapter 2</a> - Page 28 - Figure 2.5

Sea ice provides a wide range of microhabitats for diverse biota including microbes, single-celled eukaryotes (labelled algae), multicellular meiofauna, larger under-ice fauna (represented by amphipods), as well as polar cod (Boreogadus saida). Modified from Bluhm et al. (2017). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/sea-ice-biota" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 35 - Figure 3.1.1

Circumpolar depiction of species richness based on the distributions of the 11 ice-associated Focal Ecosystem Components (according to the distributions reported in IUCN Red List species accounts). A maximum of nine species occur in any one geographic location. The Arctic gateways in both the Atlantic and Pacific regions have the highest species diversity. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/findings/marine-mammals" target="_blank">Chapter 3</a> - Page 152 - Figure 3.6.1