<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Franco, Aldina M. a</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marques, João T.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sutherland, William J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Is nest-site availability limiting Lesser Kestrel populations? A multiple scale approach</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ibis</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cavities</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">cereal fields (voyant)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lesser kestrel</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">nest site availability</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">old buildings</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1474-919x.2005.00437.x</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">147</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">657 - 666</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Lesser Kestrel, a colonial migratory falcon, is one of the most endangered birds in Europe and, due to a sharp population decline across much of the breeding range, is globally threatened. The reasons for this decline are unclear, but reduced nest-site availability might be a major cause. To test this hypothesis we looked at nest-site availability within Portuguese colonies in rural and urban buildings. Nest holes were larger, longer, higher and older than unoccupied cavities. A typical nest cavity was approximately 29–30 cm long, 300–340 cm high and had an inner chamber 16.5–18 cm wide. Large-scale surveys of existing buildings in Portuguese villages suggested that 85% of sites lacked suitable nest cavities. The model for selection of buildings indicated that Lesser Kestrels prefer buildings with many roof and wall cavities, and that are surrounded by extensive cereal and fallow ﬁelds. The villages selected had many old buildings and monuments, were located in areas with few rivers, and a low percentage cover of cereal, olive groves and forest. The conservation implications of these results are discussed.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Franco, a M. a</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Catry, I.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sutherland, W. J.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palmeirim, J. M.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Do different habitat preference survey methods produce the same conservation recommendations for lesser kestrels?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Animal Conservation</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">habitat selection</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lesser kestrel</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">spatial ecology (PG)</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004///</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">http://doi.wiley.com/10.1017/S1367943004001465</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">7</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">291 - 300</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The analysis of habitat selection underlies many conservation recommendations. Different researchers use different methods, therefore there is a need to examine whether the results are consistent. This study examined habitat selection by lesser kestrels, Falco naumanni, a globally threatened species, using two methods: visual sighting data from a 35-km transect and radio-telemetry of 33 birds. Habitat use and spatial ecology were studied across all of the breeding season in a pseudo-steppe area, where traditional agro-grazing systems are still present but some areas have been transformed into pine plantations. Telemetry data indicate that, in good quality habitat, lesser kestrels prefer to forage close to the colony. Furthermore, the home ranges obtained were smaller than those for lesser kestrels using intensively managed habitats or more forested areas. Habitat availability was determined within a 4-km radius of the colony and habitat preferences were determined using compositional analysis. Both methods were found to produce similar results, but telemetry provided a larger number of signiﬁcant differences between habitats. Before the chicks hatched, lesser kestrels preferred grazed fallows, ploughed ﬁelds and cereal, while after hatching cereal stubble was the preferred habitat. In steppe habitats the protection of such foraging habitats within a 3-km radius from the colonies could be a very effective conservation measure.</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue></record></records></xml>