Tundra in the south of Ukraine

No, you can certainly compare it. In the first approximation (if you look from afar), even similar.
It is clear that in terms of vegetation height, the steppe is more like a tundra than a tropical forest or taiga. The same applies to vegetation biomass.
So what? If you look closely, the differences are clearly visible. For example, different life forms still prevail. We have almost no therophytes and cryptophytes, mostly hamophytes. Bookmark buds again - for a year, or even 2 before flowering.
You probably have more variety...
And what did a certified entomologist bring all this to? If it's not necessary, then I'll agree with him.

Well, specifically, here is a link to the original source, so to speak
http://myreptile.ru/forum/index.php?topic=14127.30

Vorona, I have objections, though mostly entomological and generally related to animal composition, but there are also inconsistencies with the botanical similarity.
Here is the biomass of plants, and is it similar, taking into account the number of insects, herbivores that inhabit the steppe, and eat these very plants?
That is, the biomass at a time point may be similar, but the total bio-production of the tundra and southern steppe is different? How long does vegetation in the tundra last?
And are there any insects in the tundra at all, including straight-winged ones?


And one more botanical point - is there such a frequent change of species composition in the tundra, because in the steppe after the end of winter, early flowers-ephimeroids-bloom, then adonis, irises, then sage and feather grass, then various other plants, and so on until late autumn.

I think the main difference is higher productivity, orders of magnitude higher, which allows a host of insects, mice of all kinds, to exist. Despite the dryness of the climate, the steppe is always green, because we have almost completely steppe consists of rhizomatous plants and deep roots.
I am the only one who witnessed such a case - a layer of earth collapsed in a ravine with a height of about 3 meters, and various roots and rhizomes were exposed, so, most of all, I was struck by the rhizome of ephedra, about 5 cm thick, and going somewhere deep into the earth between limestone slabs

Uh-oh... In my opinion, the comrades just use the word "tundra "as a synonym for the word"f**a". Well, or " sucks."
Of course, the soil thickness is different (sometimes the thickness of the fertile layer does not reach 10 cm). And the duration of the growing season, and you have more biomass growing (if it doesn't burn, again)...

in the tundra - sawflies, in the steppes-the equivalent of butterfly caterpillars, the role and biomass are comparable

rukentomovoditel Chernov from IPEE nahalturil book about the tundra.

This post was edited by CosMosk - 07/28/2013 11: 55

There are serious works on the analysis of bio-productivity of various natural zones. I remember one of them (it is in stacks, there is no time to search) - the first author Bazilevich. I vaguely remember that the biological productivity of the tundra and steppe is not comparable. Go to the library, it should be in the IPEE, read it.