Cited by 41Avian ecology and behaviorWildlife Ecology and ConservationAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Peregrine falcon and merlin predation on small shorebirds and passerines in Alberta

Dekker, Dick·1988·Canadian Journal of Zoology

Abstract

This study describes and compares hunting techniques and predatory efficiency of peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and merlin (Falco columbarius) preying on small shorebirds and passerines in open agricultural lands around Beaverhills Lake, Alberta, during spring and fall, 1965–1987. Hunting methods were divided into four categories: (i) surprise attacks with less than six swoops at prey initially on the ground, (ii) short pursuits with less than six swoops at flying prey, (iii) persistent, long-range pursuits with more than six swoops, and (iv) other or unknown methods. They made up, respectively, 73.9, 17.2, 2.5, and 6.4% of 647 hunts by peregrines, and 72.3, 16.1, 4.5, and 7.1 % of 354 hunts by merlins. Persistent pursuits of prey were significantly more successful than surprise attacks by merlins (62.5 vs. 9.4%, P < 0.00001), but not by peregrines (18.8 vs. 8.8%, P = 0.40). I postulate that peregrines and merlins employ persistent hunting techniques only if surprise attacks are unproductive because of (i) lack of expertise of the falcon, (ii) scarcity of prey, (iii) unsuitable habitat, and (iv) effective early warning by flocking prey. Peregrines captured 50 shorebirds of 11 species, and 3 passerines of 2 species. Merlins captured 28 shorebirds of 8 species, and 16 passerines of 5 species. Adult male merlins were significantly more successful than immatures and adult females combined (38.7 vs. 9.1%, P < 0.00001). Adult peregrines were not significantly more successful than either spring or fall immatures (9.2 vs. 7.2 and 4.9%, P = 0.21, P = 0.24, respectively). Merlins were significantly more successful than peregrines in hunting small passerines (12.2 vs. 3.8%, P = 0.04), but not significantly more successful in hunting small shorebirds (12.6 vs. 8.8%, P = 0.10).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1139/z88-136

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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
Dekker, D.
Corresponding author
Dekker, Dick
Venue
Canadian Journal of Zoology
Published
1988-04-01
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
925-928
ISSN
  • 0008-4301 (ISSN-L)
  • 1480-3283
OpenAlex
W2157135563
Cited by
41
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Canadian Journal of Zoology (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Wildlife Fund
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
Falco peregrinus, Merlin, hunting techniques, predation success, shorebirds, Passeriformes, surprise attack, sex differences in predation, agricultural landscapes, predator-prey interactions

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