Appendix 9.2 The 106 Arctic endemic vascular plant species (with PAF code number) and their distribution in the Arctic floristic provinces and subzones (A-E) compiled from Elven (2007).

Long-term monitoring programs on benthic fauna are missing for large areas of the Arctic. In areas where repeated monitoring has occurred, it is difficult to compare data due to different sampling approaches and different targets of monitoring efforts. There is a need for an international standardization of long- term benthic monitoring. The CBMP Benthos Expert Network has identified potential ways to improve benthic monitoring coverage, and has come up with a map showing a Pan Arctic station map.

Figure 4 12 Diatom groups from Self Organizing Maps (SOMs) in lake top sediments, showing the geographical distribution of each group (with colors representing different SOM groups). State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity Report - Chapter 4 - Page 39 - Figure 4-12

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

Appendix 17.2. Cryptic speciation in selected Arctic terrestrial and marine species.

Status of monitoring activities for each Focal Ecosystem Component (i.e., selected species groups) across each Arctic Marine Area as included in this report. STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/monitoring-status-and-advice" target="_blank">Key Findings</a> - Page 5 - Figure 1

The MODIS Land Water Mask is created from MODIS 250 m imagery incombination with Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Water Body Data (SWBD) tocreate a global map of surface water at 250 m spatial resolution. Currently, only one mapexists, created in 2009 by Carroll et al. (2009). Because only one MODIS-based map exists,an analysis of surface water change is not possible at this time.

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

Average September sea ice extent in 1979 (blue) compared with 2016 (white) and the median sea ice extent (yellow line) from 1981 to 2010 (Data: NSDIC 2016). STATE OF THE ARCTIC MARINE BIODIVERSITY REPORT - <a href="https://arcticbiodiversity.is/marine" target="_blank">Chapter 2</a> - Page 27 - Figure 2.4

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."