Learn Hardcore Russian: Пустыня — тоже часть природы, хотя там почти нет деревьев. - The desert is also part of nature, although there are almost no trees there.

You can say Пустыня тоже часть природы without the dash in handwriting or informal contexts; in plain text Russians sometimes omit it, especially online.

From the point of view of strict punctuation rules in printed text, the dash is recommended (and usually expected) between two nouns in this kind of “X = Y” sentence when there is no verb:

Пустыня — тоже часть природы.

So:

Without the dash – understandable, common in casual writing.
With the dash – stylistically and orthographically standard in edited text.

What exactly does тоже mean here, and how is it different from также?

Both тоже and также can often be translated as “also / too / as well”, but they are not always interchangeable.

In this sentence:

Пустыня — тоже часть природы…

тоже means “also / too” in the sense of “in addition, just like other things we consider nature.”

Rough guideline:

тоже = “too / as well” (adds something similar to what was just mentioned, often with a slight emotional/contrastive nuance).
- Он устал, и я тоже устал. – “He is tired, and I am tired too.”
также = more neutral “also, in addition” (often used in written style, lists, or when adding extra information).
- Он работает врачом, а также преподаёт в университете.

In this sentence, тоже is more natural because we are saying: “The desert is also a part of nature (along with forests, fields, etc.).”

Why is it часть природы and not something like часть природа?

In Russian, when you say “a part of X”, the word “X” is normally in the genitive case.

Pattern:

часть
- Genitive = “part of …”

So:

часть природы = “part of nature”
часть города = “part of the city”
часть книги = “part of the book”

If you said часть природа, that would be wrong because природа would be standing in the nominative, but the grammar requires the genitive природы after часть.

Why is природы in the genitive singular (природЫ), not plural?

Here природа is an uncountable, abstract noun (“nature” as a whole concept), and we are talking about a part of nature (in general).

часть природы literally = “a part of nature” (one whole)

The genitive singular is used because we’re talking about a portion of a single conceptual whole (nature), not “parts of many natures.”

Compare:

часть стола – part of one table (genitive singular)
части столов – parts of tables (genitive plural)

So природы is genitive singular: природа → природы.

What does хотя mean, and how does it work in this sentence?

хотя means “although / though / even though.” It introduces a subordinate clause that contrasts with the main clause.

Structure in the sentence:

Main clause: Пустыня — тоже часть природы
Subordinate clause with хотя: хотя там почти нет деревьев.

Together:

“The desert is also a part of nature, although there are almost no trees there.”

Key points about хотя:

It is a conjunction.
It is usually followed by a clause with a finite verb:
- Хотя идёт дождь, мы пойдём гулять.
It almost always requires a comma before it in writing.

Why is there a comma before хотя?

Russian punctuation uses a comma to separate the main clause from a subordinate clause introduced by conjunctions like хотя, потому что, когда, если etc.

Here:

Пустыня — тоже часть природы, ← main clause
хотя там почти нет деревьев. ← subordinate clause with хотя

So the comma marks:

End of the main statement.
Start of the concessive clause (“although …”).

This is a standard rule: you normally put a comma before хотя when it introduces a subordinate clause.

What does там refer to, and is it necessary?

там means “there”. In this sentence там refers back to Пустыня – the place we’re talking about:

там = “there, in the desert”

So the clause means: “although there (in the desert) are almost no trees.”

Is it necessary?

Grammatically, you could say: …хотя почти нет деревьев.
It would still be understandable from context.
But там makes it explicit where there are almost no trees and links the subordinate clause tightly back to Пустыня.

So it is not strictly required for grammar, but it is natural and clarifies the reference.

What does почти mean, and where does it usually go in a sentence?

почти means “almost / nearly.”

In там почти нет деревьев, it modifies нет (the idea of absence):

почти нет = “there is almost no / there are almost no”

Typical placements:

Before the word or phrase it modifies:
- Я почти готов. – “I am almost ready.”
- Он съел почти всё. – “He ate almost everything.”
- Там почти нет людей. – “There are almost no people there.”

So почти is an adverb and is usually placed right before the negation нет or before an adjective/adverb/quantifier it modifies.

Why is it нет деревьев instead of нет деревья or нет деревьевя?

The verb-like word нет (meaning “there is no / there are no”) requires its object in the genitive case.

Pattern:

нет
- Genitive (“no X / there is no X”)

For дерево (“tree”):

Nominative singular: дерево
Genitive singular: дерева (“of a tree” / “no tree” – singular)
Nominative plural: деревья (“trees”)
Genitive plural: деревьев (“of trees” / “no trees” – plural)

In почти нет деревьев we want “almost no trees” (plural). So we use:

деревьев = genitive plural of дерево

Hence: там почти нет деревьев = “there are almost no trees there.”

нет деревья would be incorrect because деревья is nominative plural, not the genitive required after нет.

Can you explain a bit more about the genitive after нет? Is that always used?

Yes, this is a very regular pattern in Russian:

When you say “there is no / there are no X”, you use нет (or не было, не будет) and put X in the genitive case:

нет времени – there is no time
нет денег – there is no money
нет проблем – there are no problems
нет воды – there is no water
нет деревьев – there are no trees

So the structure почти нет деревьев is completely standard:

почти нет (almost there is no)
деревьев (genitive plural of “trees”)

Why is “пустыня” feminine, and how would adjectives agree with it?

In Russian, most nouns ending in -а / -я are feminine, and пустыня ends in -я, so it is feminine.

You can see this in how adjectives and past-tense verbs agree with it:

красивая пустыня – “a beautiful desert” (adjective feminine: -ая)
горячая пустыня – “a hot desert”
Пустыня была большой. – “The desert was big.” (verb была – feminine singular)

So when you use adjectives with пустыня, choose the feminine singular forms.

Could we rephrase the sentence? For example: В пустыне почти нет деревьев. How is that different?

Yes, you can say:

В пустыне почти нет деревьев. – “In the desert there are almost no trees.”

This focuses only on the fact that there are almost no trees in the desert.

The original sentence does two things at once:

States that the desert is also part of nature:
- Пустыня — тоже часть природы, …
Adds a contrasting fact: although there are almost no trees there:
- …хотя там почти нет деревьев.

So:

В пустыне почти нет деревьев. – simple factual statement about trees.
Пустыня — тоже часть природы, хотя там почти нет деревьев. – a more complex idea: “Even though deserts look empty (few trees), they are still part of nature.”

Both are grammatically correct; they just express different amounts of information.

Could I say Пустыня тоже является частью природы, хотя там почти нет деревьев? Is that more formal?

Yes, that sentence is correct and sounds more formal / bookish:

Пустыня тоже является частью природы, хотя там почти нет деревьев.

Differences:

Пустыня — тоже часть природы – simple, neutral, very common in both spoken and written Russian.
Пустыня тоже является частью природы – uses the verb является (“is / constitutes / is considered to be”), which gives it a slightly more formal or academic tone.

Both are good Russian. The original version with the dash is more concise and natural in everyday language.