Cited by 178Avian ecology and behaviorAnimal Behavior and ReproductionBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms

Predator versus prey: on aerial hunting and escape strategies in birds

Hedenstrom, A.·2001·Behavioral Ecology

Abstract

Predator and prey attack-escape performance is Likely to be the outcome of an evolutionary arms race, Predatory birds are typically larger than their prey suggesting different flight performances. We analyze three idealized attack-escape situations between predatory and prey birds: climbing flight escape, horizontal speeding, and turning and escape by diving. Generally a smaller bird will outclimb a larger predator and hence outclimbing should be a common escape strategy. However, some predators such as the Eleonora's falcon (Falco eleonorae) has a very high rate of climb for its size. Prey species with an equal or higher capacity to climb fast, such as the swift Apus apus, usually adopt climbing escape when attacked by Eleonora's falcons. To analyze the outcome of the turning gambit between predator and prey we use a Howland diagram, where the relative linear top speeds and minimum turning radii of prey and predator define the escape and danger zones. Applied to die Eleonora's falcon and some potential prey species, this analysis indicates that the falcon usually wins against the example prey species; that is, the prey will be captured. Level maneuvering hunting is the most common strategy seen in Eleonora's falcons. To avoid capture via use of this strategy by a predator, the prey should be able to initiate tight turns at high linear speed, which is facilitated by a low wing loading (weight per unit of wing area). High diving speed is favored by large size. Lf close enough to safe cover, a prey might still opt for a vertical dive to escape in spite of lower terminal diving speed than that of the predator. On the basis of aerodynamic considerations we discuss escape flight strategies in birds in relation to morphological adaptations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/beheco/12.2.150

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hedenstrom, A.
Venue
Behavioral Ecology
Published
2001-03-01
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
150-156
ISSN
  • 1045-2249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-7279
OpenAlex
W2136228680
Cited by
178
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 4
FWCI
5.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Behavioral Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Aerospace Engineering › Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
Keywords
predator-prey interactions, aerial hunting, Eleonora's falcon, Falco eleonorae, common swift, climbing flight, turning performance, wing loading, flight morphology, evolutionary arms race

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review