Compare the nature of the tundra and the nature of the arctic desert zone, what explains the similarities and differences?

First, one can imagine the similarity of these two natural zones, where the tundra zone is a logical continuation of the Arctic desert zone. Similarity – no need to think long – the presence of permafrost, an eternal freezer, in other words. The difference is quite significant. What can the Arctic desert look like? Snow, snow, snow – deserts of snow. Ice and snow. Only small areas can boast of soil, and mostly stones. Mosses, lichens are not whimsical and can grow, which they do – on rocks, stones. There are also flowers. In summer, here, only +4 degrees. The tundra is located to the south and is more diverse and more beautiful in appearance. And the similarity and difference – the explanation is the same – the climate. The tundra is much richer. You can, already, feast on berries of lingonberry, cranberry, cloudberry. Meet shrubs of polar willow, dwarf birch in the Arctic, they are not, as well as berries. There is no forest here and there, because the soil is frozen, the roots of trees will not pierce it and will not survive in its cold ice. There are no glaciers in the tundra, the vegetation is solid, almost like in a field, only it looks like a carpet – not high. In the Arctic, mosses and lichens are by no means continuous, but only sparse islets. There are many lakes in the tundra, but none in the Arctic.