↓ Skip to main content

A few long versus many short foraging trips: different foraging strategies of lesser kestrel sexes during breeding

Overview of attention for article published in Movement Ecology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#50 of 146)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

16 tweeters
1 Facebook page


8 Dimensions

Readers on

43 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
A few long versus many short foraging trips: different foraging strategies of lesser kestrel sexes during breeding
Published in
Movement Ecology, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40462-017-0100-6
Pubmed ID

Jesús Hernández-Pliego, Carlos Rodríguez, Javier Bustamante


In species with biparental care both members of the breeding pair cooperate to raise the offspring either by assisting each other in every reproductive task or by specializing in different ones. The latter case is known as reproductive role specialization. Raptors are considered one of the most role-specialized groups, but little is known about parental behavior away from the nest. Until the advent of biologgers, avian role specialization was traditionally studied with direct observations at the nest because of the difficulties of following and recording the behavior of free-ranging individuals. In this paper we analyze how the role specialization of the lesser kestrel (Falco naumanni) influences foraging movement patterns throughout the breeding season. We tracked 30 lesser kestrel breeders from two breeding colonies using high-frequency GPS-dataloggers during four consecutive breeding seasons. We found no differences between sexes in lesser kestrel foraging movements early in the breeding season before the formation of the breeding pair. However, we observed sexually distinct foraging movement strategies later in the breeding season once breeding pairs were formed. Lesser kestrel males performed a large number of short foraging trips while females made a few long ones. This maximized the provisioning rate by males to feed their mates and offspring. Meanwhile, lesser kestrel females spent more time at the colony than males in order to defend the nest, incubate the eggs and brood the nestlings. Females also helped their mates to provision the nestling once these had grown and required more food and less protection. Furthermore, lesser kestrels showed a sexual spatial segregation in foraging areas, with males foraging closer to the colony than females. The lesser kestrel responds to changes in energy demand throughout the breeding season with its foraging movement strategy, but in a different way depending on parental sex. The sexual spatial segregation observed is likely to be the result of an adaptive foraging strategy based on role specialization to reduce prey depletion close to the colony and intersexual competition in order to improve breeding success.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 42 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 26%
Researcher 9 21%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 60%
Environmental Science 5 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Materials Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
of 12,954,038 outputs
Outputs from Movement Ecology
of 146 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 260,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Movement Ecology
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,954,038 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 146 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them