Mosses and vascular plants show diverging diversity patterns along a latitudinal gradient in boreal bogs and fens

Abstract Questions The latitudinal biodiversity gradient; i.e., the increase in biodiversity towards the equator, is one of the most prominent biodiversity patterns. Nevertheless, many questions remain to be answered about the influence of multiple environmental factors on the latitudinal biodiversity gradient, especially for mosses, and the functional diversity of mosses and vascular plants. This study aims at evaluating the influence of latitude, climate, environmental variables, and habitat types (bog vs fen) on taxonomic and functional diversity (α‐diversity and β‐diversity) and the composition of vascular plant and moss species. Location 49° N to 55° N in Northwestern Quebec, Canada. Taxon Mosses, vascular plants. Methods We used a database containing 376 phytosociological plots (400 m 2 ) sampled in boreal peatlands located along a 600‐km latitudinal gradient. We evaluated changes in α‐diversity and β‐diversity in response to latitude, longitude, climate, and local abiotic variables for both taxonomic groups using linear mixed effect models. We evaluated the effects of these variables on taxonomic and functional composition using variance partitioning by redundancy analysis. Results Moss diversity increased with latitude, although the effects were masked by environmental variables, whereas vascular plant diversity decreased with latitude in fens and did not vary with latitude in bogs. We observed a decrease in taxonomic and functional uniqueness with latitude. Moss and vascular plant taxonomic and functional composition were primarily structured by contrasting local conditions in bogs and fens, whereas climatic variations along the latitudinal gradient played a secondary role. Conclusions Our results highlight the contrasting biodiversity patterns in both peatland types and the importance of local habitat conditions in structuring vascular plant and moss diversity. These patterns varied depending on the diversity indicator used, as α‐ and β‐diversity and functional and taxonomic diversity were often decoupled. Future studies should therefore include more than one diversity indicator and consider the differences between ecosystems and taxon groups.