Recommendations
Project | Type | # | Outcome | Report | Year | FEC |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | For this reason we urge wider gathering of age ratio data, and marking programmes to provide annual assessments of reproductive success and survival, particularly amongst populations showing declines. | A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic And Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations | 2018 | ||
CBMP Terrestrial Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | There is a very clear need to establish or expand annual reporting on population size and demographic trends to make such information accessible to decision makers and stakeholders in a timely fashion. | A Global Audit of the Status and Trends of Arctic And Northern Hemisphere Goose Populations | 2018 | ||
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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | 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 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 | Key finding | Patterns of biodiversity vary across the Arctic, but ecoregions that have historically warmer temperatures and connections to the mainland generally have higher biodiversity than those with cold temperatures (high latitude or altitude) or on remote islands. | 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 | Advice | Traditional Knowledge (TK)
| 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 | Advice | Monitoring Design and Assessment
| State of the Arctic Freshwater Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2016 | ||
CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Food resources are being lost for many Arctic species in Arctic marine environments. Many species have to travel further and expend more energy to feed, leading to concerns about individual health and potential effects at the population level | 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 | Key finding | Northward movement is easier for more mobile openwater species. Open water species such as polar cod, are more mobile compared to those linked to shelf regions, such as benthic species including some fishes for which suitable habitat may be unavailable if they move northward. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 | ||
CBMP Marine Biodiversity Monitoring | Key finding | Increasing numbers and diversity of southern species are moving into Arctic waters. In some cases, they may outcompete and prey on Arctic species, or offer a less nutritious food source for Arctic species. | 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 | Key finding | Arctic marine species and ecosystems are undergoing pressure from cumulative changes in their physical, chemical and biological environment. | State of the Arctic Marine Biodiversity: Key Findings and Advice for Monitoring | 2017 |