W222 
Hymenoptera: Apocrita 
Je N 
197 == — 96 
S72 34 
a —— t= «Es 
: 1972 +4 2.6 2 
97 SS! t ———) 108 
S 972 28 
97 -— { = 742 
4 972 —— ee 22 
oS — ee 725 
) 
972 re 
6 1972 |—_—__—_— 6 | 
im Wr $97 
10 20 30 10 20 30 10 20) 29 
June July August 
ut 
Fig. 6. Seasonal distribution of “sticky-board 
captures of ‘’narrow-wai/sted’’ parasitic 
Hymenoptera (suborder Apocrita) in 1971 and 
1972. 
these plots they declined in abundance from 
1971 to 1972. Leafhoppers have gradual (in- 
direct, or hemimetabolic) development. Cap- 
tures included adults and immatures (nymphs) 
at various stages of development; thus, the cap- 
ture period is long. Year-to-year changes in 
number of captures may reflect differences in 
activity related to ambient temperature as much 
as actual differences in abundance. 
Taking the insect fauna as a whole, the lake 
basin plots (4 and 5) seem to be the most 
productive. Only the leafhoppers show a prefer- 
ence for the drier plots (1, 3, and 7). Plots 4 and 
5 tended to show a greater abundance of adult 
insects than the other wet plots, 2 and 6. This is 
strongly the case in the Tipulidae, and less so in 
other groups. It is interesting to note that 
Enchytraeidae, the only microfaunal group 
sampled in plots 4 and 5, were slightly more 
abundant there than elsewhere, but still well 
below the Barrow mean (Table 3). We conclude 
that, as at Barrow, wet plots support more 
invertebrate biomass than dry plots; however, 
biomass of the most favorable plots at Prudhoe 
Homoptera: Cicade//idae 
Plot N 
971 ——+ t a 880 
1972 ee 
197 ae: 
2 
972 23 
97| — = = a 577 
S) 
972 | $a 330 
97 ooo 76 
4 
972 a 77 
ee fat + —— 68 
972 =a 35 
6 1972 8 
7 1972 rnp 
l | | ee! | as 
10 20 30 10 20 30 10 (40) ZS) 
June July August 
ut 
Fig. 7. Seasonal distribution of “sticky-board 
captures of leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadell/i- 
dae) in 1971 and 1972. 
Bay is well below biomass of the most favorable 
plots at Barrow. 
General Conclusions 
In general, results obtained at Prudhoe Bay 
support Our more intensive observations at Bar- 
row and reinforce their validity for northern 
Alaskan coastal tundra as a whole. It is interest- 
ing to note that the Prudhoe Bay tundra tends 
to be of lower productivity than Barrow tundra 
despite the longer and warmer growing season 
and greater floral and faunal diversity of Prud- 
hoe Bay. Thus, we must conclude that the low 
productivity of tundra systems is not a direct 
and simple result of the severity of the climate. 
The distribution of individual species (as reflect- 
ed in diversity), however, may be more directly 
influenced by climate. The link between eco- 
system complexity (diversity) and function is 
clearly a complex one, and we must avoid 
simplistic statements relating diversity and pro- 
ductivity, stability, or other integrative eco- 
system parameters. 
