ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR, 2003, 66, 973–988 doi:10.1006/anbe.2002.2270 When to use public information for breeding habitat selection? The role of environmental predictability and density dependence* BLANDINE DOLIGEZ, CLAIRE CADET, ETIENNE DANCHIN & THIERRY BOULINIER Laboratoire d’Ecologie, Universite ´ Pierre et Marie Curie (Received 23 August 2002; initial acceptance 26 September 2002; final acceptance 13 March 2003; MS. number: 7455) To select their future breeding site, individuals usually have to assess local quality by using environmental cues. One optimal cue may be ‘public information’, the local reproductive success of conspecifics in a breeding patch (patch reproductive success) because it integrates the effect of all environmental factors on breeding success. However, the quality of information conveyed by patch reproductive success is likely to depend on (1) environmental predictability and (2) interactions between individuals. We investigated how these two factors, ignored by previous models, affect the performance of individuals using patch reproductive success for breeding habitat selection compared with other information. We built a two-patch, game-theoretical model to compare the success of a strategy of breeding habitat selection based on patch reproductive success relative to four other strategies: (1) random patch choice; (2) philopatry; (3) choice based on the presence of conspecifics the previous year (conspecific attraction); and (4) choice based on intrinsic patch quality the previous year. The results illustrate how the efficiency of strategies in tracking variations in patch quality depend on environmental predictability and costs linked to density dependence, themselves linked to the dynamics of spatial aggregation of individuals. In particular, strategies based on measures of patch reproductive success perform the best for intermediate and high temporal predictability of patch quality, whereas philopatry and conspecific attraction then perform poorly. The ‘conspecific attraction’ strategy always coexists with other strategies by efficiently parasitizing the information they use. We discuss the implications of a better understanding of breeding habitat selection behaviours for evolutionary and conservation biology.  2003 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Breeding habitat quality strongly influences the fitness of individuals through different environmental compo- nents, which may vary both spatially and temporally (Orians & Wittenberger 1991; Boulinier & Lemel 1996). Individuals are thus under strong selective pressures to make optimal breeding habitat choices. There is growing evidence that individuals are able to track variations in local breeding habitat quality (Klopfer & Ganzhorn 1985; Petit & Petit 1996; Reed et al. 1999), and empirical studies have described many possible cues for breeding habitat selection. In most species, breeders rely on their own success to assess the quality of their current breeding patch and decide whether to leave (Switzer 1997; Haas 1998; reviewed in Switzer 1993). Such ‘personal’ information (Valone & Giraldeau 1993), however, is unavailable to nonbreeders and juveniles. Individuals may adopt three other types of breeding habitat selection strategies, depending on the information used: (1) strat- egies involving no information gathering, for example settle at random (i.e. with no direct respect to patch quality factors, Dale & Slagsvold 1990) or return to the natal patch (natal philopatry, Pa ¨rt 1991); (2) strategies using information on environmental factors affecting breeding success (e.g. presence of parasites or predators, Marzluff 1988; Boulinier et al. 2001; food availability, Brown & Brown 1996; vegetation type, Clark & Shutler 1999); (3) strategies using information on conspecifics, such as their presence (‘conspecific attraction’, Kiester 1979; Stamps 1988; Reed & Dobson 1993; Muller et al. Correspondence and present address: B. Doligez, Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Institute of Zoology, University of Bern, CH – 3012 Bern, Switzerland (email: blandine.doligez@esh.unibe.ch). C. Cadet is now at the Department of Zoology, University of Aberdeen, Lighthouse Field Station, George Street, Cromarty, Ross-shire IV11 8YT, U.K. E. Danchin and T. Boulinier are at the Labora- toire d’Ecologie CNRS—UMR 7625, Universite ´ Pierre et Marie Curie, 7 quai Saint Bernard, Ba ˆtiment A 7e `me e ´tage, Case 237, F-75252 Paris Cedex 05, France. *Supplementary data associated with this article can be found at www.elsevier/locate/anbehav 0003–3472/03/$30.00/0  2003 The Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 973