Abstract
Climate change is currently reshaping Arctic ecosystems, with highly uncertain future outcomes. In the best-case scenario, warming could lead to the replacement of Arctic ecosystems by more diverse and productive sub-Arctic or temperate ecosystems, which may serve as net carbon sinks. However, recent research indicates that environmental disturbances caused by rapid warming could transform these ecosystems into heavily perturbed and degraded states, resulting in a net release of carbon to the atmosphere. The eventual outcome depends on the scale and pace of environmental changes, as well as the extent of other human disturbances in the region. To navigate these changes, we argue that it is crucial for Arctic nations to collaborate in monitoring and ecosystem-based management while developing policy-relevant pathways and scenarios to guide adaptation in a rapidly changing Arctic.
1 Introduction
Since 1979, the Arctic has been warming nearly four times faster than the global average (Rantanen et al., 2022). This cold part of the globe is shaped and characterized by frozen water in the form of sea ice, ice sheets, glaciers, ice on rivers and lakes, permafrost, and snow. However, the Arctic cryosphere is melting at an accelerating rate with profound consequences for the global climate as well as for Arctic nature and people (CAFF, 2013; CAFF, 2017; AMAP, 2017c; AMAP, 2021). In the short term, the changes cause massive ecosystem perturbations which feed back to the climate system with a potential to accelerate local to regional changes in climate and greenhouse gas emissions and affect regional to global-scale climate systems. The resulting impacts on Arctic ecosystem services, livelihoods and wellbeing are accelerating and will have far-reaching consequences for Arctic residents and local communities. Impacts include changes in food security, economic and social wellbeing, cultural preservation, safety, human health, cultural ecosystem services, sense of place, transportation and infrastructure (AMAP, 2017b; AMAP, 2017a; AMAP, 2018).
In this context, the Arctic Council decided to initiate a joint assessment to be conducted by the two Arctic Council working groups; AMAP (Arctic Monitoring Assessment Program) and CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna) with the over-arching objective to “assess how climate change affects Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks and inform strategies for adaptation and resiliency”. As a part of this assessment, scientific experts have, in this Special Issue of Frontiers in Environmental Science, reviewed the scientific literature to address how the current climatic drivers affect Arctic ecosystems and how these changes feed back to the climate system. The papers include marine, terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems and cover a wide range of climate-induced changes.
Together, the reviews in this Special Issue highlight the rapid and widespread environmental changes unfolding across the Arctic. While a global reduction in fossil fuel emissions could slow these developments and provide valuable time for adaptation, many of the observed changes have already reached -or are approaching -tipping points beyond which they may become irreversible.
In the following, we synthesize the major trends and uncertainties in Arctic marine and terrestrial ecosystems, highlighting the need for coordinated monitoring, future planning and adaptations. In an accompanying editorial synthesis at the end of this Special Issue we summarize current status as portrayed by the papers presented here (Christensen et al., 2025).
2 The Arctic ocean
As sea ice diminishes from the Arctic Ocean, marine algae experience larger ice-free areas and longer growing season (Ardyna and Arrigo, 2020; Attard et al., 2024). Sustained by increased influx of nutrients, net primary production in the Arctic Ocean has increased by 57% from 1998 to 2018 (Lewis et al., 2020). Whether this increase in plant production will contribute to higher production of fish, shellfish, marine mammals and seabirds, as well as increased sequestration and storage of carbon in the bottom sediments is, however, highly uncertain and depend on complex interactions between the climatic drivers and the marine ecosystem (Ardyna and Arrigo, 2020; Oziel et al., 2025) (Figure 1; Table 1).
FIGURE 1
TABLE 1
| CC process | Description | Ref. |
|---|---|---|
| Increased primary production | Melting sea ice increases the area and prolongs the period of favorable light conditions for planktonic and benthic algal growth. Increased production is sustained by larger input of nutrients | 1, 2 |
| Seawater freshening | Increased supply of freshwater from melting ice and precipitation stratify the Arctic water masses and reduce the mixing of nutrients and oxygen in the water column | 3 |
| Coastal erosion and riverine input | Melting coastal permafrost and increased wave action from an ice-free ocean erode the Arctic coasts. Increased precipitation and melting of permafrost increase the riverine discharge of freshwater and terrigenous materials. About one-third of the Arctic ocean primary production is currently sustained by the input of nutrients from coastal erosion and rivers | 4, 5, 6, 7 |
| Increased respiration and deoxygenation | Increased input of terrigenous nutrients, warming and freshening of surface waters increase microbial respiration and remineralization of carbon and nitrogen. The result is deoxygenation, increased turbidity, reduced carbon sequestration and storage, reduced export of organic matter to bottom-dwelling organisms and less production available for higher trophic levels | 8 |
| Shift in the plankton community | Warmer and more stratified waters drive a shift in the Arctic plankton community to smaller and less nutritious species, reducing the efficiency of trophic transfer to fish, seabirds and mammals | 8, 9, 10 |
| Ocean acidification | Low water temperature and seawater freshening make the Arctic especially vulnerable to ocean acidification. On a basin scale, the Arctic ocean is projected to become undersaturated with respect to aragonite within this century with large potential consequences for calcifying organisms and the marine ecosystem | 11, 12, 13 |
| Borealization | Northward expansion of boreal and sub-Arctic species is replacing Arctic and ice-associated species and thereby altering ecosystem function and dynamics | 10, 14 |
| Migratory species and food-web mismatch | Many mammals, birds and fish migrate from the south to the Arctic to reproduce and/or feed. Rapid climate change can disrupt the synchrony between interacting species, leading to phenological mismatches in timing or spatial mismatches in distribution. These disruptions can disturb food webs, potentially resulting in population booms due to predator relief, and/or population collapse due to starvation | 15, 16, 17 |
| Climatic extremes | Marine heatwaves increase in frequency and intensity with pervasive effects on the marine ecosystem, triggering harmful algae blooms, replacement of important functional groups, and reduced growth and mass mortality of susceptible species | 18 |
Key climate change-driven processes in Arctic marine ecosystems.
References: 1 Ardyna and Arrigo, (2020), 2 Lewis et al. (2020), 3 Kwiatkowski et al. (2020), 4 Nielsen et al. (2022), 5 Feng et al. (2021), 6 Zhang et al. (2021), 7 Terhaar et al. (2021a), 8 Oziel et al. (2025), 9 Mueter et al. (2021), 10 Niemi et al. (2024), 11 Niemi et al. (2021), 12 Terhaar et al. (2021b), 13 Findlay et al. (2025), 14 Husson et al. (2024), 15 Kuletz et al. (2024), 16 Renner and Zohner (2018), 17 Carroll et al. (2024), 18 Pecuchet et al. (2025).
The rich sub-Arctic marine ecosystems, such as the Barents and Bering Seas support some of the world’s richest fisheries, and one scenario under climate warming, is that these rich systems simply move north and replace the historically less productive high-Arctic and ice-dominated ecosystems. However, the massive perturbation triggered by warming, ocean acidification and the melting of the Arctic cryosphere is likely to push the marine ecosystem into less stable and undesirable states. In a worst-case scenario, the Arctic marine ecosystems could as a response to these drivers turn into simplified systems dominated by opportunistic algae, high microbial activity, low diversity of plants and animals, turbid waters and expanding low-oxygen areas (see Breitburg et al., 2018; Reusch et al., 2018). This situation mirrors the changes observed in coastal areas world-wide (Breitburg et al., 2018). However, while climate warming, human eutrophication and over-fishing are the culprits in warmer seas, the changes in the Arctic are currently governed by ice-melting, seawater freshening, nutrient input, ocean acidification and warming (Figure 1).
The outcome of the climate-induced changes would depend on the initial state of the ecosystem, the pace and magnitude of the environmental changes, and not least the evolving pressures from emerging human activities in the Arctic, including increased pressures from fishing (Fauchald et al., 2021). To effectively document and understand ongoing changes, coordinated pan-Arctic monitoring and predictive modeling of climatic drivers and marine ecosystem responses are essential. In addition, it is crucial to assess how emerging human activities—such as industrial fishing, shipping, tourism, and the extraction of oil and mineral resources—interact with climate drivers to change the ecosystems. Equally important is the co-creation of scenarios, pathways, and solutions that support a more sustainable future for the Arctic Ocean.
3 Arctic tundra ecosystems
In response to permafrost thaw, shorter periods with snow cover, and warmer summers, the tundra has gradually become greener over the past 40 years (Frost et al., 2025). The Arctic greening serves as a proxy for increased production and biomass of plants, reflecting a shift in vegetation cover, often linked to the expansion of deciduous shrubs. This “borealization” of the terrestrial Arctic ecosystem is occurring alongside a range of ecological disturbances that are expected to intensify in the coming decades, including wildfires (Baltzer et al., 2025), insect outbreaks (Vindstad et al., 2019), and extreme climatic events (Christensen et al., 2021).
The climate induced changes in the tundra ecosystem feed back to the climate system through biotic process such as microbial activity and herbivory (Schmidt et al., 2024). The most significant of these feedbacks is linked to permafrost thaw (Schuur et al., 2022). The Arctic permafrost holds approximately one-third of the world’s soil organic carbon (Schuur et al., 2015). As it thaws, this carbon becomes exposed to microbial decomposition, releasing carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. These greenhouse gas emissions further accelerate global warming, creating a reinforcing feedback loop. The strength of this climate feedback depends on the magnitude of the emissions, the ratio of methane to carbon dioxide released (Parmentier et al., 2024), and the extent to which these emissions are offset by increased carbon uptake by accumulated plant biomass through Arctic greening (Schuur et al., 2022; See et al., 2024; López-Blanco et al., 2025).
Above the permafrost, the tundra holds a relatively thin and wet active layer, where most microbial and hydrological activity takes place. As the underlying permafrost thaws, the active layer deepens, altering tundra hydrology by promoting the drainage of soil, wetlands, and shallow lakes. These changes in Arctic hydrology could cause atmospheric climate feedback through reduction in cloudiness, which can be in the same order of magnitude as the permafrost carbon feedback (de Vrese et al., 2023; de Vrese et al., 2024). Moreover, the drainage of the tundra causes a shift to more aerobic microbial activity, resulting in reduced methane emissions relative to carbon dioxide (Parmentier et al., 2024). Finally, expanding woody vegetation, drier soils and increased lightning activity are contributing to more frequent, intense, and widespread Arctic wildfires (Kim et al., 2024; Baltzer et al., 2025). Besides having a pervasive effect on the vegetation (Heim et al., 2025), wildfires promote further melting of the permafrost and increase the emission of greenhouse gasses and aerosols.
Feedback loops between the ecosystem and the climate system, lagged ecosystem responses, and massive perturbations from wildfires, changed hydrology, species invasions and a thawing cryosphere will cause abrupt, unexpected and pervasive shifts in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems (Figure 2; Table 2). The magnitude of potential impacts, combined with significant uncertainties, underscores the need for a precautionary approach to development of human activities. Effective policy must be grounded in continuously updated knowledge drawn from coordinated pan-Arctic monitoring and predictive modeling, as well as future scenarios and preferred pathways co-developed by local residents and scientific experts. The spatial heterogeneity across Arctic regions offers valuable opportunities for shared learning, where regional experiences, local and indigenous knowledge, and bottom-up adaptations can inform and strengthen a collective response to ongoing changes.
FIGURE 2
TABLE 2
| CC process | Description | Ref. |
|---|---|---|
| Permafrost thawing | Permafrost thawing leads to widespread landscape changes, such as ground subsidence, thermokarst development, the formation or draining of wetlands and lakes, and the deepening of the active soil layer. Abrupt thaws occur when local subsidence and changed hydrology expose deeper layers to thaw. As the ice-rich permafrost melts, previously frozen organic carbon is exposed to microbial activity, resulting in the release of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere | 1, 2 |
| Changes in hydrology | Accelerating evaporation, precipitation, ice melting and freshwater runoff intensify and alter the Arctic water cycle, leading to more extreme hydrological events such as floods and droughts, as well as fundamental changes in river regimes, groundwater recharge, and the distribution of lakes and wetlands in Arctic landscapes | 3, 4 |
| Arctic greening | Warmer summer temperatures, an extended growing season, and a deeper active soil layer enhance plant growth, leading to increased carbon sequestration and storage in plant tissues. Disturbances such as climate extremes, increased herbivory, wildfires and altered hydrology intermittently disrupt the overall greening trend, resulting in areas of browning | 5, 6 |
| Shrub expansion | Arctic greening is associated with a “shrubification” of the tundra, where tall deciduous shrubs expand and replace lichen and moss dominated vegetation. The shift in vegetation cover feeds back to the climate system by enhancing carbon sequestration through plant growth, reducing surface albedo, increasing snow accumulation and soil insulation, and stimulating microbial activity and decomposition | 7, 8, 9 |
| Wildfires | Rising temperatures causes longer fire seasons, more ignition from lightning and drier vegetation and soil. Combined with more fire fuels from woody plants and dried peat, the frequency, intensity, and extent of Arctic wildfires are accelerating. Crucially, as permafrost thaws, large areas of carbon-rich soils and peatlands dry out, making them susceptible to prolonged burning. This process releases significant amounts of CO2 and aerosols into the atmosphere and accelerates permafrost thawing, creating a feedback loop that intensifies the environmental changes. A new fire regime with increased frequency and intensity of wildfires have large implications for biodiversity and ecosystem resilience | 10, 11, 12, 13 |
| Dust in the Arctic | Wildfires, loss of snow cover, glacier retreat, permafrost thaw, and rising drought intensity all contribute to increased dust and aerosol production in the Arctic. These particles can be transported over long distances, engaging in complex interactions with both climate and ecosystems, including radiative forcing (positive and negative), cloud formation, albedo and fertilization of aquatic ecosystems | 14 |
Key climate change-driven processes in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems.
References: 1 Schuur et al. (2015), 2 Schuur et al. (2022), 3 AMAP (2017c), 4 AMAP (2021), 5 Frost et al. (2025), 6 Myers-Smith et al., 2020, 7 Mekonnen et al. (2021), 8 Myers-Smith et al. (2011), 9 Schmidt et al. (2024), 10 Descals et al. (2022), 11 Kim et al. (2024), 12 Holloway et al. (2020), 13 Baltzer et al. (2025), 14 Meinander et al. (2025).
4 Conclusion
Climate change is driving profound transformations in Arctic marine ecosystems, with increased primary production but growing risks of biodiversity loss and ecosystem instability. While boreal species may expand northward, potentially benefiting fisheries, this shift could disrupt food webs and reduce ecosystem resilience. Ocean acidification, deoxygenation, and harmful algal blooms threaten marine life and carbon storage capacity. Regional outcomes will depend on ecosystem vulnerability, climate dynamics, and human activities such as fishing, shipping and resource extraction. In this regard, cross-sector adaptation planning through ecosystem-based management by national and local governments could play a key role. There is a need for policymakers to prioritize coordinated pan-Arctic monitoring, scenario development, and adaptive and sustainable governance to safeguard the future of the Arctic Ocean.
Arctic terrestrial ecosystems are undergoing rapid and unpredictable transformations due to permafrost thaw, vegetation shifts, and intensifying disturbances such as wildfires and extreme weather. These changes create powerful climate feedbacks, notably through greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost, which risk accelerating global warming. The spatially variable and lagged responses of ecosystems complicate predictions and demand flexible, regionally informed policy approaches. A precautionary stance is essential, supported by coordinated pan-Arctic monitoring, scenario planning, and inclusive co-development with local communities. Policymakers must integrate scientific and indigenous knowledge to guide sustainable Arctic development under growing uncertainty.
To effectively prepare for, navigate, and adapt to these transformations, we argue that the Arctic States, through the Arctic Council, should take the following three actions:
Establish coordinated pan-Arctic monitoring and predictive modeling of key climatic drivers, human activities, and their combined impacts on Arctic socio-ecological systems. This action should include:
o Establish a prioritized list of relevant key parameters to be monitored across the Arctic.
o Initiate and coordinate monitoring of key parameters by the Arctic States.
o Initiate and coordinate pan-Arctic predictive modelling of the interactions between climate, human drivers and Arctic ecosystems.
o Establish a central data repository for data storage and sharing, and an online knowledge hub for dissemination of trends, maps and predictions of key parameters.
Co-develop policy relevant pathways and scenarios for a changing Arctic. This action should include activities where:
o Arctic scientists, policymakers and communities co-develop exploratory scenarios to examine a range of plausible futures based on potential trajectories of climate and economic drivers.
o Scientists and local and indigenous knowledge holders co-develop desirable goals and possible pathways to reach these goals in normative target seeking scenarios.
Promote bottom-up approaches to develop nature-based solutions, ecosystem-based management and ecosystem-based adaptation strategies. This action should include:
o Local capacity building for ecosystem-based management
o Facilitate community-based co-development of solutions and actions to enhance resilience of Arctic socio-ecological systems to climate change.
Statements
Author contributions
PF: Writing – review and editing, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Investigation. TRC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Investigation. TC: Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. TRC was supported by the Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and Utilities.
Acknowledgments
We thank the AMAP and CAFF secretariats for administrative support.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
AMAP (2017a). Adaptation actions for a changing arctic: perspectives from the barents area. Oslo, Norway.
2
AMAP (2017b). Adaptation actions for a changing arctic: perspectives from the bering-chukchi-beaufort region. Oslo, Norway.
3
AMAP (2017c). Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the arctic (SWIPA) 2017. Oslo, Norway.
4
AMAP (2018). Adaptation actions for a changing arctic: perspectives from the baffin bay/davis strait region. Oslo, Norway.
5
AMAP (2021). AMAP arctic climate change update 2021: key trends and impacts. Tromsø, Nor.
6
ArdynaM.ArrigoK. R. (2020). Phytoplankton dynamics in a changing Arctic Ocean. Nat. Clim. Chang.10, 892–903. 10.1038/s41558-020-0905-y
7
AttardK.SinghR. K.GattusoJ.-P.Filbee-DexterK.Krause-JensenD.KühlM.et al (2024). Seafloor primary production in a changing Arctic Ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.121, e2303366121. 10.1073/pnas.2303366121
8
BaltzerJ. L.HachéS.TuretskyM. R.HodsonJ.Van Der SluijsJ.MclarenA.et al (2025). Impacts of novel wildfire disturbance on landcover and wildlife in boreal North America. Front. Environ. Sci.13, 1504568. 10.3389/FENVS.2025.1504568
9
BreitburgD.LevinL. A.OschliesA.GrégoireM.ChavezF. P.ConleyD. J.et al (2018). Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science1979, 359. 10.1126/science.aam7240
10
CAFF (2013). “Arctic biodiversity assessment, status and trends in arctic biodiversity: synthesis,” in Arctic council, conservation of arctic flora and fauna. Editor MeltofteH
11
CAFF (2017). State of the arctic marine biodiversity report. Iceland: Akureyri.
12
CarrollG.AbrahmsB.BrodieS.CiminoM. A. (2024). Spatial match–mismatch between predators and prey under climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol.8, 1593–1601. 10.1038/s41559-024-02454-0
13
ChristensenT. R.LundM.SkovK.AbermannJ.López-BlancoE.SchellerJ.et al (2021). Multiple ecosystem effects of extreme weather events in the arctic. Ecosystems24, 122–136. 10.1007/s10021-020-00507-6
14
ChristensenT. R.FauchaldP.ArndalM. F.ChristensenT. (2025). Navigating the arctic: unraveling ecosystem dynamics amidst climate change. Front. Environ. Sci.
15
de VreseP.BeckebanzeL.GaleraL. de A.HollD.KleinenT.KutzbachL.et al (2023). Sensitivity of arctic CH4 emissions to landscape wetness diminished by atmospheric feedbacks. Nat. Clim. Change13 (8), 832–839. 10.1038/s41558-023-01715-3
16
de VreseP.StackeT.GaylerV.BrovkinV. (2024). Permafrost cloud feedback may amplify climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett.51 (12), e2024GL109034. 10.1029/2024GL109034
17
DescalsA.GaveauD. L. A.VergerA.SheilD.NaitoD.PeñuelasJ. (2022). Unprecedented fire activity above the arctic circle linked to rising temperatures. Science378, 532–537. 10.1126/SCIENCE.ABN9768
18
FauchaldP.ArnebergP.DebernardJ. B.LindS.OlsenE.HausnerV. H. (2021). Poleward shifts in marine fisheries under arctic warming. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 074057. 10.1088/1748-9326/ac1010
19
FengD.GleasonC. J.LinP.YangX.PanM.IshitsukaY. (2021). Recent changes to arctic river discharge. Nat. Commun.12, 6917. 10.1038/s41467-021-27228-1
20
FindlayH. S.FeelyR. A.JiangL. Q.PelletierG.BednaršekN. (2025). Ocean acidification: another planetary boundary crossed. Glob. Chang. Biol.31, e70238. 10.1111/gcb.70238
21
FrostG. V.BhattU. S.MacanderM. J.BernerL. T.WalkerD. A.RaynoldsM. K.et al (2025). The changing face of the arctic: four decades of greening and implications for tundra ecosystems. Front. Environ. Sci.13, 1525574. 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1525574
22
HeimR. J.RochaA. V.ZemlianskiiV.BarrettK.BültmannH.BreenA.et al (2025). Arctic tundra ecosystems under fire—Alternative ecosystem states in a changing climate?J. Ecol.113, 1042–1056. 10.1111/1365-2745.70022
23
HollowayJ. E.LewkowiczA. G.DouglasT. A.LiX.TuretskyM. R.BaltzerJ. L.et al (2020). Impact of wildfire on permafrost landscapes: a review of recent advances and future prospects. Permafr. Periglac. Process31, 371–382. 10.1002/PPP.2048
24
HussonB.BluhmB. A.CyrF.DanielsonS. L.EriksenE.FossheimM.et al (2024). Borealization impacts shelf ecosystems across the arctic. Front. Environ. Sci.12, 1481420. 10.3389/FENVS.2024.1481420
25
KimI. W.TimmermannA.KimJ. E.RodgersK. B.LeeS. S.LeeH.et al (2024). Abrupt increase in arctic-subarctic wildfires caused by future permafrost thaw. Nat. Commun.15, 1–11. 10.1038/s41467-024-51471-x
26
KuletzK. J.FergusonS. H.FrederiksenM.GallagherC. P.HauserD. D. W.HopH.et al (2024). A review of climate change impacts on migration patterns of marine vertebrates in arctic and subarctic ecosystems. Front. Environ. Sci.12, 1434549. 10.3389/FENVS.2024.1434549
27
KwiatkowskiL.TorresO.BoppL.AumontO.ChamberlainM.R. ChristianJ.et al (2020). Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosciences17, 3439–3470. 10.5194/BG-17-3439-2020
28
LewisK. M.Van DijkenG. L.ArrigoK. R. (2020). Changes in phytoplankton concentration now drive increased Arctic Ocean primary production. Science369, 198–202. 10.1126/science.aay8380
29
López-BlancoE.VäisänenM.SalmonE.JonesC. P.SchmidtN. M.MarttilaH.et al (2025). The net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) at catchment scales in the arctic. Front. Environ. Sci.13, 1544586. 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1544586
30
MeinanderO.UppstuA.Dagsson-WaldhauserovaP.Groot ZwaaftinkC.Juncher JørgensenC.BaklanovA.et al (2025). Dust in the arctic: a brief review of feedbacks and interactions between climate change, aeolian dust and ecosystems. Front. Environ. Sci.13, 1536395. 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1536395
31
MekonnenZ. A.RileyW. J.BernerL. T.BouskillN. J.TornM. S.IwahanaG.et al (2021). Arctic tundra shrubification: a review of mechanisms and impacts on ecosystem carbon balance. Environ. Res. Lett.16, 053001. 10.1088/1748-9326/abf28b
32
MueterF. J.PlanqueB.HuntG. L.AlabiaI. D.HirawakeT.EisnerL.et al (2021). Possible future scenarios in the gateways to the arctic for subarctic and arctic marine systems: II. Prey resources, food webs, fish, and fisheries. ICES J. Mar. Sci.78, 3017–3045. 10.1093/ICESJMS/FSAB122
33
Myers-SmithI. H.ForbesB. C.WilmkingM.HallingerM.LantzT.BlokD.et al (2011). Shrub expansion in tundra ecosystems: dynamics, impacts and research priorities. Environ. Res. Lett.6, 045509. 10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/045509
34
Myers-SmithI. H.KerbyJ. T.PhoenixG. K.BjerkeJ. W.EpsteinH. E.AssmannJ. J.et al (2020). Complexity revealed in the greening of the arctic. Nat. Clim. Chang.10, 106–117. 10.1038/s41558-019-0688-1
35
NielsenD. M.PieperP.BarkhordarianA.OverduinP.IlyinaT.BrovkinV.et al (2022). Increase in arctic coastal erosion and its sensitivity to warming in the twenty-first century. Nat. Clim. Chang.12, 263–270. 10.1038/s41558-022-01281-0
36
NiemiA.BednaršekN.MichelC.FeelyR. A.WilliamsW.Azetsu-ScottK.et al (2021). Biological impact of ocean acidification in the Canadian arctic: widespread severe pteropod shell dissolution in Amundsen Gulf. Front. Mar. Sci.8, 600184. 10.3389/fmars.2021.600184
37
NiemiA.BluhmB. A.Juul-PedersenT.KohlbachD.ReigstadM.SøgaardD. H.et al (2024). Ice algae contributions to the benthos during a time of sea ice change: a review of supply, coupling, and fate. Front. Environ. Sci.12, 1432761. 10.3389/FENVS.2024.1432761
38
OzielL.GürsesÖ.Torres-ValdésS.HoppeC. J. M.RostB.KarakuşO.et al (2025). Climate change and terrigenous inputs decrease the efficiency of the future arctic Ocean’s biological carbon pump. Nat. Clim. Chang.15, 171–179. 10.1038/s41558-024-02233-6
39
ParmentierF. J. W.ThorntonB. F.SilyakovaA.ChristensenT. R. (2024). Vulnerability of arctic-boreal methane emissions to climate change. Front. Environ. Sci.12, 1460155. 10.3389/FENVS.2024.1460155
40
PecuchetL.MohamedB.HaywardA.Alvera-AzcárateA.DörrJ.Filbee-DexterK.et al (2025). Arctic and subarctic marine heatwaves and their ecological impacts. Front. Environ. Sci.13, 1473890. 10.3389/FENVS.2025.1473890
41
RantanenM.KarpechkoA.Yu.LipponenA.NordlingK.HyvärinenO.RuosteenojaK.et al (2022). The arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979. Commun. Earth Environ.3, 168. 10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3
42
RennerS. S.ZohnerC. M. (2018). Climate change and phenological mismatch in trophic interactions among plants, insects, and vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.49, 165–182. 10.1146/ANNUREV-ECOLSYS-110617-062535/CITE/REFWORKS
43
ReuschT. B. H.DierkingJ.AnderssonH. C.BonsdorffE.CarstensenJ.CasiniM.et al (2018). The Baltic sea as a time machine for the future coastal ocean. Sci. Adv.4, eaar8195. 10.1126/sciadv.aar8195
44
SchmidtN. M.BarrioI. C.KristensenJ. A.López-BlancoE.van BeestF. M. (2024). Highlighting the role of biota in feedback loops from tundra ecosystems to the atmosphere. Front. Environ. Sci.12, 1491604. 10.3389/fenvs.2024.1491604
45
SchuurE. A. G.McGuireA. D.SchädelC.GrosseG.HardenJ. W.HayesD. J.et al (2015). Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature520, 171–179. 10.1038/nature14338
46
SchuurE. A. G.AbbottB. W.CommaneR.ErnakovichJ.EuskirchenE.HugeliusG.et al (2022). Permafrost and climate change: carbon cycle feedbacks from the warming arctic. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.47, 343–371. 10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011847
47
SeeC. R.VirkkalaA. M.NataliS. M.RogersB. M.MauritzM.BiasiC.et al (2024). Decadal increases in carbon uptake offset by respiratory losses across northern permafrost ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Chang.14, 853–862. 10.1038/s41558-024-02057-4
48
TerhaarJ.LauerwaldR.RegnierP.GruberN.BoppL. (2021a). Around one third of current Arctic Ocean primary production sustained by Rivers and coastal erosion. Nat. Commun.12, 1–10. 10.1038/s41467-020-20470-z
49
TerhaarJ.TorresO.BourgeoisT.KwiatkowskiL. (2021b). Arctic Ocean acidification over the 21st century co-driven by anthropogenic carbon increases and freshening in the CMIP6 model ensemble. Biogeosciences18, 2221–2240. 10.5194/BG-18-2221-2021
50
VindstadO. P. L.JepsenJ. U.EkM.PepiA.ImsR. A. (2019). Can novel Pest outbreaks drive ecosystem transitions in northern-boreal birch forest?J. Ecol.107, 1141–1153. 10.1111/1365-2745.13093
51
ZhangS. M.MuC. C.LiZ. L.DongW. W.WangX. Y.StreletskayaI.et al (2021). Export of nutrients and suspended solids from major arctic Rivers and their response to permafrost degradation. Adv. Clim. Change Res.12, 466–474. 10.1016/J.ACCRE.2021.06.002
Summary
Keywords
Arctic ocean, borealization, ecosystem perturbation, regime shift, tundra ecosystem
Citation
Fauchald P, Christensen TR and Christensen T (2026) Climate change impacts on Arctic ecosystems and associated feedbacks. Front. Environ. Sci. 13:1747632. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2025.1747632
Received
16 November 2025
Revised
08 December 2025
Accepted
15 December 2025
Published
16 January 2026
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Adam Schlosser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
Reviewed by
Céline Giesse, University of Hamburg, Germany
Wenbo Zhou, University of Michigan, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Fauchald, Christensen and Christensen.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Per Fauchald, per.fauchald@uit.no
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.