Data from: Does source population size affect performance in new environments?

Small populations are predicted to perform poorly relative to large
populations when experiencing environmental change. To explore this
prediction in nature, data from reciprocal transplant, common garden, and
translocation studies were compared meta-analytically. We contrasted
changes in performance resulting from transplantation to new environments
among individuals originating from different sized source populations from
plants and salmonids. We then evaluated the effect of source population
size on performance in natural common garden environments and the
relationship between population size and habitat quality. In ‘home-away’
contrasts, large populations exhibited reduced performance in new
environments. In common gardens, the effect of source population size on
performance was inconsistent across life-history stages (LHS) and
environments. When transplanted to the same set of new environments, small
populations either performed equally well or better than large
populations, depending on life stage. Conversely, large populations
outperformed small populations within native environments, but only at
later life stages. Population size was not associated with habitat
quality. Several factors might explain the negative association between
source population size and performance in new environments: (i) stronger
local adaptation in large populations and antagonistic pleiotropy, (ii)
the maintenance of genetic variation in small populations, and (iii)
potential environmental differences between large and small populations.