Search for: All records

The geographic settings and interests of diverse groups of rights- and stakeholders figure prominently in the need for internationally coordinated Arctic observing systems. Global and regional observing systems exist to coordinate observations across sectors and national boundaries, leveraging limited resources into widely available observational data and information products. Observing system design and coordination approaches developed for more focused networks at mid- and low latitudes are not necessarily directly applicable in more complex Arctic settings. Requirements for the latter are more demanding because of a greater need for cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral prioritization and refinement from the local to the pan-Arctic scale, in order to maximize the use of resources in challenging environmental settings. Consideration of Arctic Indigenous Peoples’s observing priorities and needs has emerged as a core tenet of governance and coordination frameworks. We evaluate several different types of observing systems relative to the needs of the Arctic observing community and information users to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each framework. A typology of three approaches emerges from this assessment: “essential variable,” “station model,” and “central question.” We define and assess, against the requirements of Arctic settings, the concept of shared Arctic variables (SAVs) emerging from the Arctic Observing Summit 2020 and prior work by the Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks Road Mapping Task Force. SAVs represent measurable phenomena or processes that are important enough to multiple communities and sectors to make the effort to coordinate observation efforts worthwhile. SAVs align with essential variables as defined, for example, by global observing frameworks, in that they guide coordinated observations across processes that are of interest to multiple sectors. SAVs are responsive to the information needs of Arctic Indigenous Peoples and draw on their capacity to codesign and comanage observing efforts. SAVs are also tailored to accommodate the logistical challenges of Arctic operations and address unique aspects of the Arctic environment, such as the central role of the cryosphere. Specific examples illustrate the flexibility of the SAV framework in reconciling different observational approaches and standards such that the strengths of global and regional observing programs can be adapted to the complex Arctic environment. 

Interest in the deep Arctic Ocean is rapidly increasing from governments, policy makers, industry, researchers, and conservation groups, accentuated by the growing accessibility of this remote region by surface vessel traffic. In this review, our goal is to provide an updated taxonomic inventory of benthic taxa known to occur in the deep Arctic Ocean and relate this inventory to habitat diversity. To achieve this goal, we collected data for Arctic metazoan deep-sea taxa from open-access databases, information facilities, and non-digitised scientific literature, limiting the collection to the area north of 66°N and below 500 m depth (excluding all shelf seas). Although notable progress has been made in understanding the deep Arctic using novel technologies and infrastructure, this data gathering shows that knowledge of deep-sea benthic Arctic communities remains very limited. Yet, through our compilation of habitat maps, we show that the Arctic contains a high diversity of geomorphological features, including slopes, deep basins, submarine canyons, ridges, and seamounts, as well as chemosynthesis-based and biogenic (biologically engineered) ecosystems. To analyse taxon richness and density, using both morphological and molecular data, we compiled 75,404 faunal records with 2,637 taxa. Phyla with the most records were the Arthropoda (21,405), Annelida (13,763) and Porifera (12,591); phyla with the most documented taxa were the Arthropoda (956), Annelida (566) and Mollusca (351). An overview of the dominant groups inhabiting the different geomorphological features highlights regions in the deep Arctic where data are particularly scarce and increased research efforts are needed, particularly the deep basins of the central Arctic Ocean. This scarcity of deep benthic Arctic biodiversity data creates a bottleneck for developing robust management and conservation measures in a rapidly changing region, leading to a call for international collaboration and shared data to ensure understanding and preservation of these fragile Arctic ecosystems.