Abstract
Several theoretical studies predict that informed (e.g., density-dependent) dispersal should generally result in lower emigration probabilities than uninformed (random) dispersal. In a 2012 publication, Bocedi et al. surprisingly come to the opposite conclusion. For most scenarios investigated, they found that noninformed and, particularly, less precisely informed dispersers evolve lower dispersal propensity than dispersers following "fully informed" strategies. Further, they observed that fully informed individuals evolved a steplike dispersal response-a response to local density that contradicts theoretical predictions for organisms with nonoverlapping generations. Replicating the individual-based simulations of Bocedi et al. we find that these conclusions are not justified and are based on a misinterpretation of simulation results: their controversial findings result from (i) a misleading use of the term "population density," (ii) a misconception concerning the true informative value of the different decision criteria they compared, and (iii) arbitrary constraints on the evolution of the dispersal response that prevented the evolution of strategies that allow for a fitness-enhancing utilization of available information.