# Talk:American kestrel

As a UConn physiological ecology student, I will be reporting on the American kestrel's use in scientific studies, particularly those pertaining to physiology. I've come across some really interesting information, and here are some sources I plan to use:
Fernie, K.J., G. Mayne, J.L. Shutt, C. Pekarik, K.A. Grasman, R.J. Letcher, and K. Drouillard. 2005. Evidence of immunomodulation in nestling American kestrels (Falco sparverius) exposed to environmentally relevant PBDEs. Environmental Pollution 138: 485-493.
Fox, R., S.W. Lehmkuhle, and D.H. Westendorf. 1976. Falcon visual acuity. Science 192: 263-265 
Strasser, E.H. and J.A. Heath. 2011. Effects of developmental conditions on nestling American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) corticosterone concentrations. General and Comparative Endocrinology 173: 164-170. 
Villarroel, M., D.M. Bird, and U. Kuhnlein. 1998. Copulatory behavior and paternity in the American kestrel: the adaptive significance of frequent copulations. Animal Behavior 56: 289-299. 
Wilson, G.R., S.J. Cooper, J.A. Gessaman. 2004. The effects of temperature and artificial rain on the metabolism of American kestrels (Falco sparverius). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Part A 139: 389–394. 
Gavetern (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello,
Tomorrow I will publish an account of American kestrel physiology under its own separate heading. I am covering metabolic rate, stress response to environmental disturbance, and immunomodulation response to toxic chemicals. You can find a draft of my contribution on my talk page:User_talk:Gavetern Gavetern (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the description section, fixing redundancies and adding more detail. I also added three sources, so that should help bring the article closer to encyclopedic quality. 
I wonder about the use of the picture of the Kestrel on a phone wire. It's not a very good picture of a Kestrel, as non of the identifying marks can be seen and without those it might as well be a picture of a Peregrine or a Sharp-Shinned Hawk. If we could get a picture of a landed Kestrel, that would be much better. Maleficarum 16:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Falco sparverius (American Kestrel) exhibited at the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, Tucscon, Arizona - Is this a female bird? - Thanks, Leonard G. 03:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
That is a female bird, by duller coloration and tan wings with black markings (males have a cobalt patch on the wing.) Gavetern (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no reference given for the claim that the common name "Sparrow Hawk" was used because of confusion with the Eurasian sparrowhawk. I have seen equally plausible alternative explanations for the use of this common name in the past but the claim made here is not backed up with a citation/reference. Can anyone locate a credible source for the etymology of the word sparrowhawk when used in reference to the American kestrel? I'm not going to change the article right away but technically that claim should be removed if there is no citation. My impression is that the origin of the name is unclear at best. Many print encyclopedias do not make strict claims as to the origin of the name. Grizmek's Encyclopedia of Animal life does make the claim that they are sometimes called "grasshopper hawks" because they eat grasshoppers but no claim is made as to the origin of the term "sparrow hawk."
A possible alternative would be to say, "The American Kestrel (Falco sparverius) is a small falcon. This bird was (and sometimes still is) colloquially known in North America as the "Sparrow Hawk". This name is misleading because while there may be a superficial resemblance to an accipiter hawk, the American Kestrel is falcon. Falcons and accipiters are only very distantly related among the diurnal raptors.
If no reference to the etymology of "sparrow hawk" can be located we could also add the phrase, "The exact origin of the name sparrow hawk is unclear and the name is misleading . . ." Kirkmona (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

An anon just posted this comment in the article, so I'm moving it here because (s)he may have a point.
"If they don't fly until day 26, how can they disperse from the nest area at two to four weeks old? (Or is this measured in Kestrel days?)"
I think this is all under the Reproduction section. Will try to find refs for this and the Lesser Prarie Chicken later today unless someone wants to hop on in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Two possible explanations occur, haven't researched either
The two to four weeks may refer to the period after fledging, rather than the age
Some species of bird, like the Tawny Owl do leave the nest up to ten days before fledging, and sit on the branches - maybe this is what is meant?
jimfbleak (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The problematic sentence is "Generally, young do not disperse more than 0.6 miles (one km) away from the nest area until two to four weeks old." This is why I don't like articles with a bunch of facts and then a reference list at the bottom. We don't have any idea which reference book (if any) this came out of. Terres (1980) page 275 states , "young leave nest 30-31 days after hatching." This agrees with Ehrlich (1988)p.244 Neither say anything about dispersal behavior after fledging. Given that two sources we can cite state that they do not leave the nest until 30-31 days I think we can safely assume the sentence is incorrect. I'll add in the citations I found for fledging time and unless someone can figure out correct info on dispersal after fledging (for example if it is supposed to read, "Generally, young do not disperse more than 0.6 miles (one km) away from the nest area until two to four weeks after fledging." then we should just remove the info as it is clearly incorrect as it reads. Kirkmona (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I finally figured this out. The two to four weeks does indeed correspond to the amount of time from fledging to dispersal and not from birth to dispersal. I'll correct the article. Good citations could have solved this mess a lot earlier! The citation I found uses Wyllie's (1985) definition of dispersal, which is movement of a fledged bird farther than 1 km (aka 0.6 km) from its nest without return. I'll incorporate this in as well. The relevant phrase from the pdf for those who are interested is as follows. "Mean time of dispersal was 23.2 d for small broods(N = 6, SE = 1.9) and 26.7 d for large broods (N = 7, SE = 2.0)." In other words, 23 to 26 days. Kirkmona (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Below I am posting the current systematics section, which I plan to rewrite. I have been unable to find sources for the material currently in that section, and so I am removing it. It can be reincorporated into the article if sources are found. —outoffocus 01:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The American Kestrel not a true kestrel. mtDNA cytochrome b sequence analysis (Groombridge et al. 2002) indicates a Late Miocene split between the ancestors of the American Kestrel, and those of the Common Kestrel and its closest relatives. The color pattern with its large areas of brown is reminiscent of kestrels, but the coloration of the head—notably the black ear patch, which is not found in the true kestrels—and the male's extensively gray wings are suggestive of a closer relationship with thehobbies, an informal grouping of falcons of usually average size.
Species such as the Merlin and the Aplomado Falcon are proposed as possible close relatives. Indeed, the Merlin is a highly polymorphic bird and although its grey tail and back are distinctive, certain morphs are the only birds that might conceivably be confused with American Kestrels. Conclusive evidence is lacking, and what can be said at present judging from the fairly noninclusive DNA sequence studies is that the general relationships of the present species seem to lie with a number of rather basal "hobby" lineages, such as the Merlin and Aplomado Falcon mentioned already, or the Red-footed and Amur Falcons—or even the Peregrine Falconlineage with its large species.
The American Kestrel is not very closely related to these groups, although it might be closer to the Aplomado Falcon (and its presumed close relatives, the BatandOrange-breasted Falcons) than to other living species - an association that is also better supported by biogeography than a close relationship with the exclusively Old World true kestrels. It is nonetheless highly distinct in morphology from these birds and, interestingly, has a syrinx similar to the Peregrine and thehierofalcons.
In conclusion, until better evidence is available, it is best considered part of a radiation of falcon lineages that diversified around the North Atlantic at the end of the Miocene. Though fossils of small falcons are known from North America at roughly the correct time, the earliest testimony of the American Kestrel lineage is Pleistocene remains of the living species.

This review is transcluded from Talk:American Kestrel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Intelligentsium 00:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a nice article. Comments:

Lead section
The lead section begins using "it" (singular), but suddenly switches to "they" in the third paragraph
Fixed
"It is the only kestrel found in the Western Hemisphere, though is a very rare vagrant to western Europe.": the relationship between these two ideas needs to be clearer
switched from though to and. Is this okay?
I apologize if I was unclear in the comment: what I meant to say was that the first part (being the only kestrel in the western hemisphere) does not preclude its occurrence in the eastern hemisphere (in addition, part of western Europe is in the western hemisphere).
Now that I think about it, the western Europe part isn't necessary. I've removed it and clarified the wording.
"It is the most common falcon in North America, as it can live in a wide variety of habitats": the word "common" implies highest population, which is not directly related to habitat
I don't see how it isn't related. A species that can only live in a specific biome would probably be less common than one that can live in many. Anyway, I can't think of a way to clarify that. Do you have a suggestion?
That's my point: "A species that can only live in a specific biome would probably be"; this is not for certain, but the word "as" implies that it is. I've changed it, let me know what you think
I've changed it to "and it can live".
"Juveniles are similar to the adults": Similar in what ways? (be brief, or alternatively delete)
Added in plumage
In the lead section you have "It is the only kestrel found in the Americas.", but you don't seem to mention this in the body
Added
Unfortunately the statement is not sourced within the body.
Cited
Description
Under Description, both stating that it is the size of a thrush and then comparing it to a specific thrush ("such as the American Robin (Turdus migratorius)") distracts from the main topic
Removed robin mention
The statement "However, these subtle differences are often difficult to discern in the field." is not cited.
Removed
"Plumage has more variation between the sexes": More than what?
Added than size
Systematics
Under Systematics, the sentence "The American Kestrel's scientific name was given by Carolus Linnaeus in his 18th Century workSystema Naturae under the name Falco sparverius" is awkward
Reworded
Under Systematics: "Several other local names for the kestrel are also in use": "Colloquial names" or "common names" would probably be better terms
Fixed
Why do you have all the subspecies authorities in brackets?
I'm not sure; I'll remove the parentheses if it's a problem.
This is really a minor issue, but the list seems to be arranged in no particular order. Perhaps group subspecies by when they were described?
I listed them in same order as they were listed in the source. I believe they go (approximately) from north to south in distribution.
Ecology and behavior
Under Ecology and behavior: "Its distribution ranges from northern Canada and Alaska, down to the southernmost tip of South America, Tierra del Fuego.": That's an odd use of the word "distribution". Also, I don't particularly like the use of "down"—south is south, not "down"
Fixed
"The American Kestrel is able to live in very diverse conditions": Are there any examples of this other than elevation?
Expanded sentence
"Females are found in open areas more often than males during the non-breeding season. Explanations for this behavior include the two sexes utilizing their habitats differently, or the larger females arriving to the preferred habitat first and excluding males from their territory": These sentences are awkward
Rewrote
"This statistic is likely biased, however, as reported deaths are usually found near or in areas populated by humans." This statement is uncited
Moved ref; it includes the last statement also.
"The kestrel has an average mortality rate of 57%" This is not clear. What group does this apply to? Or, what are the conditions of this mortality rate?
I've added 'yearly', does that clear it up? I also fixed a few serious errors in that section, which may explain some things.
It is still unclear. To say that "the kestrel has an average yearly mortality rate of 57%", with no other information, indicates that 57% of the entire population die every year.
The source doesn't elaborate, unfortunately. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if that's true, given the average lifespan of 15 months.
Update: I removed the sentence, because I can't find a clarification.
Feeding
Under Feeding, "Part of the reason the Kestrel maintains high population densities is because it can eat a wide variety of both insects and vertebrates" is repetitive Never mind on this one, I've reworded it
I've changed the wording a bit; was that what you were looking for?
The sentence "For example, if a particular area falls below the average success rate for capturing prey, the bird will move to a different area" implies that the bird would know what "the average success rate for capturing prey" is
Reworded
Reproduction
Under Reproduction, the sentence "Pairs also usually return to previous nesting sites in consecutive years, since it would give birds an advantage over younger or invading individuals to already be familiar with the hunting grounds, neighbors, predators, and other features of the site" is awkward
Split sentence
Relationship with humans
Under Relationship with humans, "The American Kestrel's most significant relationship with humans is through falconry": "significant" is one of those "words to watch", as it is vague (significant in what way?) and may introduce a biased point-of-view or editorializing (which I don't think is the case here, but for future reference)
I'm trying to think of a way to change that while still getting the point across. Do you have a suggestion?
Update: reworded, is that better?
"scientists have gotten them to breed prematurely": Can you use a better word than "gotten"? It is not standard English. "Prematurely" here is also ambiguous: prematurely in terms of the time of year, or in terms of age?
I've reworded it. As for prematurely, the source doesn't specify and I can't find any other mentions of it. Would it be better if I remove 'prematurely' and only include 'more than once a year'?
Immediately after the preceding sentence, you end the section with "However, since all raptors are protected in the United States, it is illegal to posses [sic] one there without a permit", which does not relate directly to use in science.
Seperated
General
When you use the shorthand "The Kestrel", you need to be consistent about whether you capitalize the K
Fixed
Sometimes you use the shorthand "kestrel" for American Kestrel, but it may seem that you are referring to kestrels in general. This is more of a general impression I've gleaned, so I can't provide specific cases, but the more specific should be used whenever there is the possibility of confusion
This 'shorthand' is used in many bird FAs, including Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon, so I see no reason to change all of them unless you have specific examples where it is confusing.
I'm not saying we should change all of them, only the ones that may cause confusion. I'll fix this if I see it
Integers 1-10 should be spelled out unless followed by an abbreviated unit
Done
Reference 35 appears to be broken
Fixed
Some of the image captions are a bit curt. Alt text is not required for Good Articles, but will be if you plan to take this article further
I've added the location to one caption; not sure what else I can add.
[1] is not the best as an external link. It contains advertising and instructions on how to build a birdhouse, which is outside the scope of a Wikipedia article
I've removed it, and added some other ones.
That concludes my initial read-through. Over the next few days I'll make some more in-depth comments regarding the article. Again, you did a good job with the article. Intelligentsium 01:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the thorough review.—focus 23:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
What's with all the subspecies authorities being put in parentheses? Were all the species actually initially described in a different genus? —innotata 14:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, no problems found, but a bit more could be said. A GA easily, but needs work for FA. —innotata 14:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty much there. I'll check sources, images, MOS compliance and such, as well as giving a final read-through. Intelligentsium 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This article meets all the GA criteria. For 'book-keeping' purposes I am including a copy of the criteria below:
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Congratulations! Intelligentsium 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you!—focus 21:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't proper authority citations be used? Were any subspecies described in different genera? —innotata 22:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I love this bird, and this article. Well done! One of the highlights of my 'birding experience' is hand feeding a young kestrel in the wild. I can still hear its "killy-killy" cry of thanks for the offering of red meat as it swooped to my extended hand. Is it possible to change the first image? It does not display the majesty and beauty of this marvelous falcon. It reminds me more of a wind-blown thrush, clinging to a branch. Editor:Leonard's image above (Info request, Jan 07) is much more representative. Or a display of the fantastic plumage as is used later in the article. Thanks...Buster7 (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestion, and I'm glad you like this article. I too have had opportunities to interact with kestrels (although not in the wild). The infobox image is something which I put a good amount of time thinking about, and I'll admit, the current image is far from perfect. However, I feel that most of the other images (including the ones above) do not accurately depict the size of the kestrel. As it is stated in the article, the bird is about the size of a thrush. But if someone were to look at the first photo above, with no other knowledge of the bird's size, they might imagine it as being about the size of a Peregrine Falcon, a very bad impression to give people. Also, the infobox image should ideally depict the bird in its natural habitat, and not with a handler. If you can find a different image that satisfies these 'criteria', please don't hesitate to try it in the article. —focus 20:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The current images (as of May 27, 2012) are fantastic. Thanks to whomever provided them. ```Buster Seven Talk 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The caption for the new image @ feeding reads "Female eating a dead bird in California". This could be mistaken to imply that the kestrEl eats carrion which is not the case It can easily be changed to "Female kestrel eating in California" or "Kestral with it's kill or some other reasonable caption. 1```Buster Seven Talk 13:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to replace the carrion eating kestrel. I know it is not eating carrion, it just looks like it. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The lead says that they're commonly used by beginners in falconry, but the "relationship with humans" section says they're "definitely not a beginner's bird". Is this a contradiction? Are beginners commonly using them when they shouldn't? 73.140.131.133 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Was introduced in this edit. I have only layman knowledge in this field, but my brief research finds many sources considering them as beginner birds, but also plenty of other sources highlighting the difficulties new falconers experience in using them. Perhaps the article could use some expansion in this area, but the original description seems more accurate (since it does not make a claim that they are "definitely not" for beginners), so I undid the IP's change. — Earwig talk 02:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I've done a lot of editing in this article, and wrote almost all the falconry section.  The bottom line is this.  The American kestrel is often considered a beginner's bird because it is common and less protected than other falcons, and hence has historically been allowed for use as a beginner's bird. Also, more experienced falconers tend to want to "move up" to bigger raptors and pursue larger game. But, getting the most out of the American kestrel takes skill, because the bird is delicate and not as overtly aggressive to prey as some larger birds. To be an aggressive hunter it must be flown hungry, and generally lighter than it is in the wild. Because the bird is so small, it it easy to damage its health by taking its weight too low.  Falconers use accurate gram level scales to weigh these birds, and monitor their weight daily and closely.  The goal is to fly the bird when hungry, but to keep it healthy and strong.  It is a delicate balance. This is fully explained in the book "American Kestrels in Modern Falconry"  PhaseAcer (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The first line of the description states, "Under traditional classification, the American kestrel is the smallest raptor in America." Is this a clause, what did the author mean "traditional classification"? — cygnis insignis 19:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Kitty hawk. It was reverted by User:UtherSRG. There is another source: https://www.carolinabirdclub.org/BOCC/Non-Passerines/31%20Falcons/American%20Kestrel.pdf. What is the consensus for non-scientific names? Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC) Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. The golden rule requires the rejection of anything that comes from poor quality sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@UtherSRG:With the first source I can agree, the author is described as a local freelance writer and illustrator. Source can be considered as a "blog". But please look the second source: it is not a blog, it is an excerpt from the specialized book about birds: "Birds of the Central Carolinas Including Ornithological Records and Firsthand Accounts from the Civil War Era to Today. By: Donald W. Seriff, Richard O. Bierregaard, 2018. One of the authors Dr. R.O. Bierregaard is an ornithologist, Research Associate at Academy of Natural Sciences of Drexel University. You can see it here: https://www.google.ca/books/edition/Birds_of_the_Central_Carolinas/9RpKtAEACAAJ?hl=uk. Would be glad for the feedback. Second, about the picture made and added by @Peter K Burian:. As can be seen from edits history, Peter K Burian removed it as mistakenly named picture of Aplomado falcon. Later it was put back, but in fact it is looking like Aplomado falcon, and that file needs to be removed and renamed. Thanks for consideration. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
That book is self-published, so falls into the same category: not reliable. Your suggestion of Aplomado falcon doesn't seem correct - doesn't have the same look, nor the correct range. The image you question is located in Ontario, Canada while the Aplomado falcon has a range that is significantly more southern. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I am currently working on an audio version of this article. Abolishedtemple (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)