Per Fauchald
Torben Røjle Christensen2,3- 1Arctic Sustainability Lab, Institute for Arctic and Marine Biology, UiT -Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
- 2Department of Ecoscience - Arctic Ecosystem Ecology, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
- 3Water, Energy and Environmental Engineering Research Unit, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
- 4Department of Ecoscience - Arctic Environment, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark
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. Interactions between climate change and Arctic marine ecosystems. Climate change triggers and accelerates a wide range of transformations in the Arctic marine environment (upper left) that subsequently impact various biological processes in the marine ecosystem (upper right). Depending on its initial condition, the rate and extent of the changes, as well as the influence of other human disturbances, the Arctic marine ecosystem may be replaced by a more productive and diverse boreal ecosystem (lower right) or transform into a heavily perturbed and degraded system (lower left). Rapid environmental change coupled with increased human impacts, heighten the chances of a shift toward a degraded ecosystem, whereas a slower pace may favor a more gradual transition to ecosystem replacement. Due to spatial variability in key drivers across the Arctic, trajectories can differ among regions, resulting in ecosystem replacement in some areas and degradation in others. Ultimately, the properties of the new ecosystem, such as albedo and net rate of carbon storage and release, determine how the ecosystem change will feed back to the climate system.
Table 1. Key climate change-driven processes in Arctic marine ecosystems.
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. Interactions between climate change and Arctic terrestrial ecosystems. Climate change is driving widespread environmental changes in the Arctic (upper left). These alterations initiate complex biological processes (upper right), collectively leading to fundamental shifts in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems. On one hand, Arctic ecosystems may be replaced by more productive and diverse boreal or temperate ecosystems (lower right). On the other hand, disturbances such as changes in fire regimes, climate extremes, landscape and hydrological alterations, and invasive species could cause ecosystems to shift into less desirable states (lower left). The trajectory of these changes depends on the initial condition of the ecosystem, additional human impacts, and the pace of environmental change -ultimately driven by greenhouse gas emissions. Rapid environmental change coupled with increased human impacts, heighten the chances of a shift toward a degraded ecosystem, whereas a slower pace may favor a more gradual transition to ecosystem replacement. Due to spatial variability in key drivers across the Arctic, trajectories can differ among regions, resulting in ecosystem replacement in some areas and degradation in others. Ultimately, the ecosystem’s albedo and its net rates of carbon storage and release will influence how these transformations feedback into the climate system.
Table 2. Key climate change-driven processes in Arctic terrestrial ecosystems.
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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
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.
Acknowledgements
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
AMAP (2017a). Adaptation actions for a changing arctic: perspectives from the barents area. Oslo, Norway.
AMAP (2017b). Adaptation actions for a changing arctic: perspectives from the bering-chukchi-beaufort region. Oslo, Norway.
AMAP (2018). Adaptation actions for a changing arctic: perspectives from the baffin bay/davis strait region. Oslo, Norway.
Ardyna, M., and Arrigo, K. R. (2020). Phytoplankton dynamics in a changing Arctic Ocean. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 892–903. doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0905-y
Attard, K., Singh, R. K., Gattuso, J.-P., Filbee-Dexter, K., Krause-Jensen, D., Kühl, M., et al. (2024). Seafloor primary production in a changing Arctic Ocean. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 121, e2303366121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2303366121
Baltzer, J. L., Haché, S., Turetsky, M. R., Hodson, J., Van Der Sluijs, J., Mclaren, A., et al. (2025). Impacts of novel wildfire disturbance on landcover and wildlife in boreal North America. Front. Environ. Sci. 13, 1504568. doi:10.3389/FENVS.2025.1504568
Breitburg, D., Levin, L. A., Oschlies, A., Grégoire, M., Chavez, F. P., Conley, D. J., et al. (2018). Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science 1979, 359. doi:10.1126/science.aam7240
CAFF (2013). “Arctic biodiversity assessment, status and trends in arctic biodiversity: synthesis,” in Arctic council, conservation of arctic flora and fauna. Editor H Meltofte
Carroll, G., Abrahms, B., Brodie, S., and Cimino, M. A. (2024). Spatial match–mismatch between predators and prey under climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1593–1601. doi:10.1038/s41559-024-02454-0
Christensen, T. R., Lund, M., Skov, K., Abermann, J., López-Blanco, E., Scheller, J., et al. (2021). Multiple ecosystem effects of extreme weather events in the arctic. Ecosystems 24, 122–136. doi:10.1007/s10021-020-00507-6
Christensen, T. R., Fauchald, P., Arndal, M. F., and Christensen, T. (2025). Navigating the arctic: unraveling ecosystem dynamics amidst climate change. Front. Environ. Sci.
de Vrese, P., Beckebanze, L., Galera, L. de A., Holl, D., Kleinen, T., Kutzbach, L., et al. (2023). Sensitivity of arctic CH4 emissions to landscape wetness diminished by atmospheric feedbacks. Nat. Clim. Change 13 (8), 832–839. doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01715-3
de Vrese, P., Stacke, T., Gayler, V., and Brovkin, V. (2024). Permafrost cloud feedback may amplify climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51 (12), e2024GL109034. doi:10.1029/2024GL109034
Descals, A., Gaveau, D. L. A., Verger, A., Sheil, D., Naito, D., and Peñuelas, J. (2022). Unprecedented fire activity above the arctic circle linked to rising temperatures. Science 378, 532–537. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.ABN9768
Fauchald, P., Arneberg, P., Debernard, J. B., Lind, S., Olsen, E., and Hausner, V. H. (2021). Poleward shifts in marine fisheries under arctic warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 074057. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac1010
Feng, D., Gleason, C. J., Lin, P., Yang, X., Pan, M., and Ishitsuka, Y. (2021). Recent changes to arctic river discharge. Nat. Commun. 12, 6917. doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27228-1
Findlay, H. S., Feely, R. A., Jiang, L. Q., Pelletier, G., and Bednaršek, N. (2025). Ocean acidification: another planetary boundary crossed. Glob. Chang. Biol. 31, e70238. doi:10.1111/gcb.70238
Frost, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Macander, M. J., Berner, L. T., Walker, D. A., Raynolds, M. K., et al. (2025). The changing face of the arctic: four decades of greening and implications for tundra ecosystems. Front. Environ. Sci. 13, 1525574. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1525574
Heim, R. J., Rocha, A. V., Zemlianskii, V., Barrett, K., Bültmann, H., Breen, A., et al. (2025). Arctic tundra ecosystems under fire—Alternative ecosystem states in a changing climate? J. Ecol. 113, 1042–1056. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.70022
Holloway, J. E., Lewkowicz, A. G., Douglas, T. A., Li, X., Turetsky, M. R., Baltzer, J. L., et al. (2020). Impact of wildfire on permafrost landscapes: a review of recent advances and future prospects. Permafr. Periglac. Process 31, 371–382. doi:10.1002/PPP.2048
Husson, B., Bluhm, B. A., Cyr, F., Danielson, S. L., Eriksen, E., Fossheim, M., et al. (2024). Borealization impacts shelf ecosystems across the arctic. Front. Environ. Sci. 12, 1481420. doi:10.3389/FENVS.2024.1481420
Kim, I. W., Timmermann, A., Kim, J. E., Rodgers, K. B., Lee, S. S., Lee, H., et al. (2024). Abrupt increase in arctic-subarctic wildfires caused by future permafrost thaw. Nat. Commun. 15, 1–11. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51471-x
Kuletz, K. J., Ferguson, S. H., Frederiksen, M., Gallagher, C. P., Hauser, D. D. W., Hop, H., 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. doi:10.3389/FENVS.2024.1434549
Kwiatkowski, L., Torres, O., Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Chamberlain, M., R. Christian, J., et al. (2020). Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosciences 17, 3439–3470. doi:10.5194/BG-17-3439-2020
Lewis, K. M., Van Dijken, G. L., and Arrigo, K. R. (2020). Changes in phytoplankton concentration now drive increased Arctic Ocean primary production. Science 369, 198–202. doi:10.1126/science.aay8380
López-Blanco, E., Väisänen, M., Salmon, E., Jones, C. P., Schmidt, N. M., Marttila, H., et al. (2025). The net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) at catchment scales in the arctic. Front. Environ. Sci. 13, 1544586. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1544586
Meinander, O., Uppstu, A., Dagsson-Waldhauserova, P., Groot Zwaaftink, C., Juncher Jørgensen, C., Baklanov, A., 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. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2025.1536395
Mekonnen, Z. A., Riley, W. J., Berner, L. T., Bouskill, N. J., Torn, M. S., Iwahana, G., et al. (2021). Arctic tundra shrubification: a review of mechanisms and impacts on ecosystem carbon balance. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 053001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abf28b
Mueter, F. J., Planque, B., Hunt, G. L., Alabia, I. D., Hirawake, T., Eisner, L., 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. doi:10.1093/ICESJMS/FSAB122
Myers-Smith, I. H., Forbes, B. C., Wilmking, M., Hallinger, M., Lantz, T., Blok, D., et al. (2011). Shrub expansion in tundra ecosystems: dynamics, impacts and research priorities. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 045509. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/045509
Myers-Smith, I. H., Kerby, J. T., Phoenix, G. K., Bjerke, J. W., Epstein, H. E., Assmann, J. J., et al. (2020). Complexity revealed in the greening of the arctic. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 106–117. doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0688-1
Nielsen, D. M., Pieper, P., Barkhordarian, A., Overduin, P., Ilyina, T., Brovkin, V., et al. (2022). Increase in arctic coastal erosion and its sensitivity to warming in the twenty-first century. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 263–270. doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01281-0
Niemi, A., Bednaršek, N., Michel, C., Feely, R. A., Williams, W., Azetsu-Scott, K., 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. doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.600184
Niemi, A., Bluhm, B. A., Juul-Pedersen, T., Kohlbach, D., Reigstad, M., Søgaard, D. 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. doi:10.3389/FENVS.2024.1432761
Oziel, L., Gürses, Ö., Torres-Valdés, S., Hoppe, C. J. M., Rost, B., Karakuş, O., 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. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02233-6
Parmentier, F. J. W., Thornton, B. F., Silyakova, A., and Christensen, T. R. (2024). Vulnerability of arctic-boreal methane emissions to climate change. Front. Environ. Sci. 12, 1460155. doi:10.3389/FENVS.2024.1460155
Pecuchet, L., Mohamed, B., Hayward, A., Alvera-Azcárate, A., Dörr, J., Filbee-Dexter, K., et al. (2025). Arctic and subarctic marine heatwaves and their ecological impacts. Front. Environ. Sci. 13, 1473890. doi:10.3389/FENVS.2025.1473890
Rantanen, M., Karpechko, A.Yu., Lipponen, A., Nordling, K., Hyvärinen, O., Ruosteenoja, K., et al. (2022). The arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 168. doi:10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3
Renner, S. S., and Zohner, C. M. (2018). Climate change and phenological mismatch in trophic interactions among plants, insects, and vertebrates. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 49, 165–182. doi:10.1146/ANNUREV-ECOLSYS-110617-062535/CITE/REFWORKS
Reusch, T. B. H., Dierking, J., Andersson, H. C., Bonsdorff, E., Carstensen, J., Casini, M., et al. (2018). The Baltic sea as a time machine for the future coastal ocean. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8195. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar8195
Schmidt, N. M., Barrio, I. C., Kristensen, J. A., López-Blanco, E., and van Beest, F. M. (2024). Highlighting the role of biota in feedback loops from tundra ecosystems to the atmosphere. Front. Environ. Sci. 12, 1491604. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2024.1491604
Schuur, E. A. G., McGuire, A. D., Schädel, C., Grosse, G., Harden, J. W., Hayes, D. J., et al. (2015). Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback. Nature 520, 171–179. doi:10.1038/nature14338
Schuur, E. A. G., Abbott, B. W., Commane, R., Ernakovich, J., Euskirchen, E., Hugelius, G., et al. (2022). Permafrost and climate change: carbon cycle feedbacks from the warming arctic. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 47, 343–371. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011847
See, C. R., Virkkala, A. M., Natali, S. M., Rogers, B. M., Mauritz, M., Biasi, C., et al. (2024). Decadal increases in carbon uptake offset by respiratory losses across northern permafrost ecosystems. Nat. Clim. Chang. 14, 853–862. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-02057-4
Terhaar, J., Lauerwald, R., Regnier, P., Gruber, N., and Bopp, L. (2021a). Around one third of current Arctic Ocean primary production sustained by Rivers and coastal erosion. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–10. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20470-z
Terhaar, J., Torres, O., Bourgeois, T., and Kwiatkowski, L. (2021b). Arctic Ocean acidification over the 21st century co-driven by anthropogenic carbon increases and freshening in the CMIP6 model ensemble. Biogeosciences 18, 2221–2240. doi:10.5194/BG-18-2221-2021
Vindstad, O. P. L., Jepsen, J. U., Ek, M., Pepi, A., and Ims, R. A. (2019). Can novel Pest outbreaks drive ecosystem transitions in northern-boreal birch forest? J. Ecol. 107, 1141–1153. doi:10.1111/1365-2745.13093
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; Accepted: 15 December 2025;
Published: 16 January 2026.
Edited by:
Adam Schlosser, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United StatesReviewed by:
Céline Giesse, University of Hamburg, GermanyWenbo Zhou, University of Michigan, United States
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, cGVyLmZhdWNoYWxkQHVpdC5ubw==