Recommendations
| Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Temperature is the overriding and predominant driver for most FECs, but climate, geographical connectivity, geology, and smaller-scale environmental parameters such as water chemistry are all key drivers of Arctic freshwater biodiversity. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Traditional Knowledge (TK)
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | All countries have data sets that allow for identification of baseline levels for most FECs, but only a few countries (such as Finland and Sweden) have an extensive spatial coverage and very few countries have long time series. Data collection was not exhaustive, and there are likely additional data that exist for each country that may contribute to the assessment of freshwater biodiversity; however, significant gaps will remain even with a more extensive search of existing data sources. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Monitoring Design and Assessment
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Available long-term monitoring records and research data indicate that freshwater biodiversity has changed over the last 200 years, with shifts in species composition being less dramatic in areas where temperatures have been more stable. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Instruments such as the European Water Framework Directive promote routine monitoring of lake and river FECs. But where a country, ecoregion, or FEC is not covered by such instruments, monitoring is irregular, has poor spatial coverage, or is absent. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Monitoring Methods
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | The vast expanse of the Arctic region in some countries (e.g., Canada, Russia) and the high monetary cost and logistical constraints associated with sampling in some regions (e.g., northern Canada and Russia, Greenland, Svalbard, Faroe Islands) limits the possibility of routine monitoring. This leads to sparse sample coverage in space and time, particularly where funds are not secure. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Citizen Science
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Arctic freshwater ecosystems are highly threatened by climate change and human development which can alter the distribution and abundance of species and affect biodiversity and the ecosystem services on which many Arctic peoples depend. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Freshwater Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | In countries where routine government monitoring is limited or does not occur, data must come from other sources (e.g., academic research), where unsecure funding often leads to single-event sampling, meaning that change over time cannot be examined. | State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Community-based monitoring networks and community relationship building:
| State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Current trends indicate that species reliant on sea ice for reproduction, resting or foraging will experience range reductions as sea ice retreat occurs earlier and the open water season is prolonged. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Plankton• Follow standardized protocols for monitoring plankton, including sample collection and preservation, microscopic and genetic analyses with taxonomic harmonization.• Ensure that full data sharing occurs between scientists, and is deposited in publicly-accessible nationaldata centers. Continue to consolidate older data.• Train highly qualified personnel to perform plankton sampling and species-level analyses, including theuse of molecular techniques.• Establish long-term funded annual monitoring programmes of plankton from selected Arctic field stations or Arctic campaigns/cruises in Canada, the U.S. and Russia, which together with the ongoing monitoring in Greenland, Iceland and Norway will secure a pan-Arctic coverage. • Develop species indexes and if possible, identify indicator taxa for monitoring. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Increases in the frequency of contagious diseases are being observed | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Marine fishes
| State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Methods: Increased attention to methodology allows for more precise and comparable results, standardized data collection, and ability to link regional monitoring to circumpolar efforts: -- Ensure that Arctic monitoring programs are ecosystem-based and include as many CBMP FECs as possible to include functionally important taxonomic groups and improve our understanding of how the ecosystem functions, and how its components are related. Such monitoring programs can serve to underpin management of human activities in the Arctic marine environment.-- Standardize methodology, including taxonomic identification in order to allow production of comparable data and results. -- Ensure training of personnel performing sampling and analyses. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Some Arctic species are shifting their ranges northwards to seek more favourable conditions as the Arctic warms. These movements pose unknown consequences for Arctic species and their interactions, such as predation and competition. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Marine mammals
| State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
| CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Advice | Knowledge gaps: Filling gaps in knowledge helps us better understand key elements and functions of the ecosystem that can help explain change and understand the system:
| State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 |
Arctic Council Working Group