WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
While this is information is not specific to tigers, it is most certainly relevant.
 *This image is copyright of its original author Trends in Wildlife Connectivity Science from the Biodiverse and Human-Dominated South Asia Abstract The threat of habitat fragmentation and population isolation looms large over much of biodiversity in this human-dominated epoch. Species-rich South Asia is made particularly vulnerable by its high human density and anthropogenic habitat modification. Therefore, reliably estimating wildlife connectivity and the factors underpinning it become crucial in mitigating extinction risk due to isolation. We analysed peer-reviewed literature on connectivity and corridors for terrestrial mammals in South Asia to identify trends in connectivity research. We identify key research gaps and highlight future directions that may aid efforts to robustly study connectivity. We found a significant bias towards charismatic megafauna and their habitats. Methodologically, although we observed a range of approaches reflecting some of the advances and innovations in the field, several studies lacked data on animal movement/behaviour, leading to potentially biased inferences of how species disperse through human-modified landscapes. New avenues for connectivity research, though currently under-explored in South Asia, offer alternatives to the heavily used but less-reliable habitat suitability models. We highlight the advantages of landscape genetic methods that reflect effective dispersal and are made feasible through non-invasive and increasingly more cost-effective sampling methods. We also identify important gaps or areas of focus that need to be addressed going forward, including accounting for animal movement/behaviour, human impacts and landscape change for dynamic and adaptive connectivity planning for the future. Trends in Wildlife Connectivity Science from the Biodiverse and Human-Dominated South Asia Key points derived:
 (03-31-2024, 09:24 PM)TheHyenid76 Wrote: While this is information is not specific to tigers, it is most certainly relevant. Why have most of the studies and research been conducted on tigers, significantly more so than other megafauna? Because the tiger is an iconic flagship and umbrella species, the tiger leads the ecosystem. As the top apex predator and dominant carnivore throughout its entire range in the wild, tigers are the pinnacle of the food-chain and ecological pyramid. This means the entire ecosystem relies on the state of a healthy tiger population. This is not the case with other megafauna such as leopards, wolves, bears, wild boars, elephants, bovines, etc. This is also why the tiger is the face of wildlife conservation. The conservation of tigers directly leads to the conservation of all other animals in its habitat. The opposite is not the case. Why? because tigers occupy much larger territories than all other animals that share their range, also, the tiger is the only predator in the ecosystem that hunts and regulates the populations of the largest herbivores which can weigh well over a tonne. What does a tiger need? Food, water and habitat, and that's exactly what every other animal needs. So once you provide the tiger, the apex predator, with all these things, rest of the animals in the ecosystem will automatically thrive. Many people don't realize the great importance of conserving top-tier apex predators like tigers. They're vital to nature. Unlike other megafauna such as bears, wolves, leopards, herbivores, etc, the tiger regulates the entire ecosystem and keeps all other animals in check. Tigers often kill and eat other carnivores such as bears, dholes, leopards and sometimes even crocodiles. By doing this, tigers regulate the numbers of other predators in the forest. This is the role of an alpha predator. There are also certain large, dangerous prey species such as adult gaur and wild buffalo, especially full-grown bulls, which cannot be hunted and killed by any other predator, except the tiger. If the tiger goes extinct, which predator would regulate the gaur, rhino or wild water buffalo populations? None. All other predators are physically incapable. If the tiger goes extinct, large herbivores like gaur, wild buffalo and banteng would overpopulate, which in turn, will deplete forest resources and eventually cause the ecosystem to collapse. This is why wildlife scientists, ecologists and biologists primarily focus on conserving tigers in Asia, because of the great importance of the tiger's role in the ecosystem. Ecologists use tiger populations to estimate how well a region is doing with regards to its biodiversity and ecological balance by estimating tiger populations. A large or growing tiger population is an indicator of a healthy ecosystem. Of course, other animals are also important and all play a role in the ecosystem, but other predators like bears, leopards, jackals, dholes, wolves, and crocodiles don't regulate the population of other predators, nor regulate the populations of large megafauna species such as wild water buffalo, gaur, rhino, and banteng. This is solely the tiger's job and what its specifically built to do. Unlike tigers, other hyper-carnivorous (pure) predators like leopards, crocodiles, dholes, and wolves don't hunt everything. There are certain prey species which are off limits due to their massive size, aggression and strength (i.e. adult gaur, wild buffalo, rhino). To also avoid competition with tigers, other pure predators (leopards, dholes, and wolves) will usually prey on small-medium sized prey animals, whereas the tiger usually hunts the largest prey animals and also often kills and eats all other animals (other predators & mammals) in the forest. So overall, the tiger has the greatest affect on the ecosystem. All in all, the tiger is the most important species in the ecosystem (and Asia) to protect and conserve. The extinction of the alpha apex predator would be devastating to the ecosystem.  *This image is copyright of its original author
All correct @Apex Titan but my friend that does not mean 'less charismatic' species should be neglected. Neglect of smaller carnivores like fishing cats can lead to ignorance about them which leads to conflict with humans. Fishing cat-Human conflict is rising in Bangladesh. Even the humble porcupine and the golden jackal plays an important role in the ecosystem.
(05-02-2024, 07:50 PM)TheHyenid76 Wrote: All correct @Apex Titan but my friend that does not mean 'less charismatic' species should be neglected. Neglect of smaller carnivores like fishing cats can lead to ignorance about them which leads to conflict with humans. Fishing cat-Human conflict is rising in Bangladesh. Even the humble porcupine and the golden jackal plays an important role in the ecosystem. I totally agree with you, every single animal plays an important role in an ecosystem. Even insects and rodents play an important role. However, wildlife ecologists and biologists focus primarily on conserving large apex predators like tigers because this particular apex species plays a far greater role and has a much bigger and important impact on the ecosystem. Look at it this way. In all tiger habitats throughout their range, if leopards went extinct, the ecosystem will still thrive because tigers are there. If bears (brown bears, Asiatic black bear, sloth bear, sun bear) went extinct, the ecosystem will still thrive because other ungulates like wild boars will consume the pine nuts, acorns, plants and scavenge on carcasses, and deer and bovines will consume the vegetation. So other ungulates and omnivores will still play the role of a bear. If dholes, wolves, crocodiles and jackals went extinct, the ecosystem will still thrive because tigers are there. Now, if tigers went extinct, it would be devastating for the ecosystem. For reasons I already explained in my previous post. Tigers are the 'saviour' of the ecosystem. This is why biologists and ecologists tend to focus mostly on the conservation of tigers. Having said that, I do think that more studies should also be conducted on other species too. But I can see why the focus is mainly on tigers.
Here's a new article (published in January 2, 2024) 'Khabarovsk game warden creates a taiga chronicle' of an interview with renowned Russian biologist, conservationist & game warden - Alexander Batalov, who shared some interesting stories from his practice and experiences with a correspondent of the Khabarovsk Territory Today news agency.
For those who don't know, Alexander Batalov is one of Russia's leading tiger & bear experts with over 50 years of field experience studying the large predators of the taiga. He is also the Director of the Durminskoye forestry and hunting enterprise. He's spent several decades following the trails and tracking tigers, bears and other predators to study their diet and habits. Alexander Batalov even traveled to Africa – South Africa and Zambia – to exchange his vast experience as a game warden. They are trying to preserve the population of elephants and rhinos. It's a good read for those who are interested in the Amur tigers studied by Batalov in the Durminskoye forest. For those interested in tigers and bears, in this new article / interview, Batalov once again mentioned that the tiger Ochkarik killed and devoured the huge male brown bear 'Chlamyda' or 'Chlamys'. "A huge robber bear named Chlamys really hindered her in this. If Rachel gets an animal for her kittens, he will come and brazenly take the prey. Then the tigress began to growl in a special way - she called for help from the father of her cubs, a tiger named Ochkarik. He came to the rescue and dealt harshly with the offender - he simply devoured him. After all, Ochkarik is a seasoned male."  *This image is copyright of its original author https://todaykhv.ru/news/in-areas-of-the...nce/71709/ https://habarovsk.bezformata.com/listnew...127201098/ Here's a picture of Ochkarik after he had killed and eaten the huge male brown bear; In this picture taken on Batalov's camera trap, Ochkarik's stomach is gorged, after he had eaten the brown bear:  *This image is copyright of its original author There's several (at least 4 articles) interviews of Batalov, a video, and an email from Batalov himself, confirming that the tiger Ochkarik killed and completely ate the giant male brown bear.
Tigers Suppress Dhole Populations.
A recent study determined that tigers suppress dhole pack sizes in India. Dhole packs are smaller in areas with higher densities of tigers, even if there is a higher density of potential prey species. The scientists conducting the study used camera traps to estimate pack size and tiger numbers. In Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATT) where tiger density is high, there were 7 dhole packs averaging 6.4 dholes per pack. In Navegaon Naziri Tiger Reserve (NNTR) where tiger density is lower, there were 5 dhole packs averaging 16.8 dogs per pack. Pack sizes were 2.6 times larger in areas with lower tiger density. Both reserves are in a subtropical dry deciduous forest. Leopards are another important large predator in the reserves, and the leopard population is also negatively impacted by tigers. Common prey species in the reserves include spotted deer, sambar, barking deer, nilgai, wild boar, and gaur. Dhole pack sizes do increase in areas with greater prey density, but the abundance of tigers is a significantly greater influence on dhole pack size. Dholes tend to prey on smaller animals in areas with lots of tigers, so they can quickly consume more of the animal before a tiger drives them away from the kill. Tigers depress dhole populations by directly hunting them and by chasing packs away from their kills. The reduced group sizes in subordinate predators are an outcome of predation pressure, low recruitment rates, and reduced energy gains due to the inability to guard kills against the apex predator - the tiger. Tigers totally dominate dholes. The authors of the study saw tigers kill dholes on 5 different occasions and chase dhole packs away and displace them from their kills 23 times. They found no cases of dholes attacking or killing tigers, not even a tiger cub, nor driving them away from their kills. Also, since tigers were eliminated from Laos, dhole populations have increased there. Tigress killed a dhole: *This image is copyright of its original author Dhole pack size variation: Assessing the effect of Prey availability and Apex predator In multipredator systems, group sizes of social carnivores are shaped by the asymmetric intra-guild interactions. Subordinate social carnivores experience low recruitment rates as an outcome of predation pressure. In South and Southeast Asia, the Tiger (Panthera tigris), Dhole (Cuon alpinus), and Leopard (Panthera pardus) form a widely distributed sympatric guild of large carnivores, wherein tigers are the apex predators followed by dhole and leopard. In this study, we attempted to understand the variation in pack size of a social carnivore, the dhole, at two neighboring sites in the Central Indian landscape. We further evaluated local-scale patterns of variation in pack size at a larger scale by doing a distribution-wide assessment across the dhole ranging countries. At the local scale, we found an inverse relationship between the density of tiger and pack size of dhole while accounting for variability in resources and habitat heterogeneity. Larger dhole packs (16.8 ± 3.1) were observed at the site where the tiger density was low (0.46/100 km2), whereas a smaller pack size (6.4 ± 1.3) was observed in the site with high tiger density (5.36/100 km2). However, in a multipredator system, the strength and direction of competition are complex. Therefore, it is imperative to understand behavioral and demographic responses of carnivores to each other, for safeguarding their viable populations and for maintaining ecosystem equilibrium. One such multipredator system found in South and Southeast Asian forests is of the tiger, dhole, and leopard. Wherein, the two big cats are solitary and the dhole is a social canid. Based on their physiological demands and competitive abilities, tigers (180–245 kg) are considered to be top predators followed by leopards (46–65 kg) and dholes (10–21 kg) (Steinmetz et al., 2013). For example, a study conducted in Kuiburi National Park, Thailand; found tiger presence to be solely correlated with prey rich sites, whereas, presence probability of dhole and leopard was a trade-off between prey availability and active spatial avoidance of tigers (Steinmetz et al., 2013). Whereas, the tiger depleted system of Northern Laos has shown a significant increase in site occupancy of dholes, (Rasphone et al., 2019). RESULTS 3.1 Pack size variation We identified seven packs from TATR (Tadoba Reserve) and five packs form NNTR (Navegaon Naziri Reserve). The number of individuals in a pack ranged from 7 to 12 for TATR Packs and 10 to 28 for NNTR Packs. The reported average pack size was 6.4 (1.3) and 16.8 (3.1) for TATR and NNTR, respectively. A significant difference was found between the pack size of TATR and NNTR (t = −3.05, p-value = 0.02) as depicted through box plots (Figure 2, TATR pack size: median = 7, IQR = 4; NNTR pack size: median = 16, IQR = 6).  *This image is copyright of its original author Dhole pack size in response to tiger density (per 100 km2) based on distribution-wide assessment:  *This image is copyright of its original author Dhole pack size in response to prey density (per km2) based on distribution-wide assessment:  *This image is copyright of its original author Across a wide range of taxa from oceanic (Baum & Worm, 2009) to terrestrial ecosystems, competitively inferior predators differ in abundance, distribution, and behavior as a response to apex predator density and distribution (Newsome et.al., 2017; Newsome & Ripple, 2015). Similarly, from the sympatric guild of tiger, leopard, and dhole, various scientific studies depict a significant decline in leopard populations along with the shift in their diet and spatial displacement to fringe areas, after the population recovery of tigers (Harihar et al., 2011; Kafley et al., 2019; Mondal et al., 2012; Steinmetz et al., 2013). Our study also revealed an inverse relationship between the density of tiger and group size of dhole while accounting for variability in resources and habitat heterogeneity. Dhole pack size in NNTR was ~ 2.62 times bigger than the pack size in TATR. The smaller pack size of dholes in a high tiger density scenario could be because of two reasons. Firstly, intense intraguild competition and associated risk of fatal injuries negatively affect dholes in TATR. For instance, loss of experienced breeders due to predation can result in decreased reproductive rate and destabilization in the pack; mortalities of helpers in the pack can result in diminished hunting efficiency and reduced food provisioning for pups; litter loss due to predation events from tiger can result in lower recruitment rates in the pack (Borg et al., 2015; Courchamp & Macdonald, 2001). All these mechanisms would synergistically act to reduce pack size, beyond which a small pack would experience inherent challenges of breeding and survival. Secondly, larger groups can successfully defend their kills and also consume the prey quickly, leaving minimal chances to attract other competitors (Carbone et al., 2005). However, the fact that per capita intake is compromised in larger groups because of sharing carcass with a greater number of individuals, might act as a counteractive selective pressure. Therefore, we predicted that the decision to be in smaller groups is to maximize energy gain while coexisting with a dominant predator by showing differential prey selection in prey size class and to avoid detection over kills. Although interference competition events are difficult to observe in the wild in such a landscape, we collected opportunistic data via direct predation events, that is, tigers killing dholes (n = 5) and occasions when dholes lost their kills to tigers (n = 23), which support our predictions on the relation between the two competing species. Long-term studies on the demography and behavioral ecology of the two species would further our understanding of such intraguild interactions in the landscape. Conversely, low apex predator density in NNTR seems to be operating in a complex two-way mechanism. We predicted that the larger pack size of dholes in NNTR might be an outcome of reduced predation pressure and easy availability of resources. It is observed in multipredator systems that availability of prey resources is key to the coexistence among carnivores. However, external factors like human-mediated disturbances can alter trophic interactions. Declining apex predator population often results in the reduced threat of predation and wider niche availability in terms of food and space for subordinate predators (Green et al., 2019). Such competitive release scenarios lead to higher survival rates of juveniles and subadults which correspond to larger group sizes in subordinate carnivores (Groom et al., 2017). Additionally, larger packs of subordinate predators are also known to be competitively advantageous to suppress the recovery of dominant predators in the system (Periquet et al., 2015). Patterns at local scale were also in concurrence with results of distribution-wide assessment of dhole pack size. We found pack size to be negatively associated with tiger density and positively associated with prey density. However, the effect size of tiger density was stronger than that of prey density. A similar pattern has been observed in the African ecosystem, where lion populations crashed due to human-induced environmental changes while facilitating the spotted hyena population. Spotted hyenas exhibit more behavioral plasticity than lions and have adapted to human subsidies in disturbed habitats. The reduced lion abundance and decreased risk of predator encounter resulted in increased foraging group size, larger clan size, an overall increase in time spent on kill sites, and easy availability of human subsidies for spotted hyenas (Green et al., 2019). Another such trend has been observed between African wild dog pack size and lion densities across temporal scale in Savé Valley Conservancy (SVC), Zimbabwe (Groom et al., 2017). Before lion population recovery, wild dog pack sizes were observed to be large. However, after the population recovery of the dominant predator, the wild dogs suffered a significant decline in survival rates of pups and adults. Competition from dominant carnivores remains one of the major factors that drive densities of other sympatric carnivores in a system. Therefore, to conserve the endangered dhole, it is crucial to understand its response to tigers, another endangered and flagship species. Our study fills some glaring lacunae in the previous understanding of how intraguild competition can potentially limit a subordinate social predator. NNTR and TATR were comparable natural experiment setups that allowed us to understand demographic responses and the consequences of dominance shift between the endangered tropical carnivores. We suggest that the increased pack size of a social subordinate predator seems to be a demographic adaptation to varying competitor densities and availability of a wider niche. This study contributes to the holistic understanding of guild interactions to optimize ecological triage while conserving charismatic apex predators and mid-ranking predators. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full...0%20km2%29 https://www.researchgate.net/publication...x_predator Top-tier apex predators like tigers dominate and regulate or reduce the populations of other sympatric subordinate (mid-ranking) predators such as wolves, bears, leopards and dholes. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, as the alpha predator, the tiger has the greatest affect on the ecosystem and keeps all other animals of the forest in check. 
Recently I sent a message to @wildrussiantour in Instagram because I want to know about the interaction of Siberian Tigers and Brown Bears, I will attach their response.
Their information surprised me a lot.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
(06-21-2024, 04:53 AM)epaiva Wrote: Recently I sent a message to @wildrussiantour in Instagram because I want to know about the interaction of Siberian Tigers and Brown Bears, I will attach their response. Nice info, thanks for posting, but not surprising at all. As expected, Russian experts and those who live and work in the forests of Far East Russia, will certainly testify to the Amur tigers dominance and superiority over the brown bear. In very recent years, Russian authorities and biologists such as Sergey Aramilev, other Amur Tiger Center experts, Pavel Fomenko, Yuri Dunishenko, Yuri Vankov etc, have all talked about tiger-brown bear interactions and fights, and all favor an adult male tiger in a fight against even very large brown bears (400 - 600 kg). The old Russian biologists from the Soviet Union era, like Kucherenko and Rukovsky, also talked about clashes and battles between tigers and large brown bears, and based on their own observations and experiences, both favored the tiger and stated that the tiger is more often the winner in a fight against a 'large' or 'very large' brown bear. Siberian tigers are the apex predators of the Amur-Ussuri taiga, at the very pinnacle of the food-chain, they hunt, kill and eat adult brown bears, they also reduce and regulate bear populations, and statistics, accounts and expert testimonies consistently show that tigers win most fights against brown bears. So based on all these factors, the tiger is clearly the dominant animal in that region. So it's no surprise that 'wildrussiantour' also stated that the tiger is the dominant animal and reduces brown bear populations in that region. To add further credence to 'wildrussiantour's statement. Recently, in 2022, a male tiger hunted and killed a larger adult male brown bear in a fight. Chief forest inspector Yuri Kya and his team of seasoned forest rangers found clear evidence and trace's all over the ground (trampled snow, broken bushes and grass and partially-eaten bear carcass) of a prolonged battle. The tiger killed the big male brown bear in a head-on fight and feasted on him for several days. https://www.interfax-russia.ru/far-east/...vskom-krae The tiger received NO bad or serious injuries from the fight, he was fine, which strongly suggests that the tiger dominated the battle. This video shows the incident reported on the TV news in Russia. (with English subtitles) A large brown bear with a front paw callus width of 18 cm was killed: Here's an interesting documentary I found last year. In which the Russian tiger expert & forest ranger, Yuri Vankov says that bears are one of the main food of tigers and make-up 13% of the tigers annual diet. He also states that in fights between tigers and brown bears, as a rule, the tiger emerges victorious. Go to 22:33 in the video: (Use English subtitles) Another important factor which is almost always overlooked by most people, is the view on tigers and brown bears of the Indigenous peoples of the Ussuri region. These native tribes have lived alongside tigers and bears for many thousands of years and know more than anyone which animal dominates and reigns supreme in the forest. I'll soon post information on this topic, which directly compares the rank, status and superiority of tigers and bears in native cultures.
Here's the best version of this video uploaded. In other videos about this incident, there's no English subtitle translation of what Yuri Kya and his team of forest rangers are saying to each other at the actual kill-site. In this version recently uploaded a few days ago, the accurate English translation of what Yuri Kya, Petrovich and others are saying to each other has been given.
When they arrived on the scene, Yuri Kya was able to determine where the fight began. When he sees the bear corpse, he specifically says it's an 'impressive bear'. He was also shocked at how badly they trampled the forest clearing during the fight, and how fiercely the tiger and huge male brown bear must have fought. The word "Blyat" is also used, which means "F*ck" or "Sh*t". Yuri Kya: "Here is the sign of a protected area. Oh, look, they started fighting here. Here it is, trampled. They trampled the glade (forest clearing) during the fight. The tiger killed the brown bear, impressive bear." Petrovich: "Here is a tiger footprint, and here is the bear corpse. Here is the bear, and here is the place where the tiger lay." Yuri Kya: "Look how they trampled the glade so badly, fought, blyat." This is a typical case of a tiger hunting and killing a large bear after a prolonged struggle and then resting near his kill, after feeding on it. The exact same scene's were discovered by the 'Siberian Tiger Project' biologists, in which they found the partially-eaten carcasses of 'large' and 'very large' adult female brown bears killed and eaten by tigers. Just like in this particular case, STP biologists also found clear signs all over the ground which testified to a prolonged, fierce battle. All brown bears were killed and eaten. Odyr was 10 years old when he killed this large male brown bear, now he's about 12 years old and still thriving. Here's some screenshots of what Yuri Kya said at the kill-site: ( Just in case if this video gets taken down in the future )  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
New book published about Amur tigers: "Lord of the Northern Jungle"
Famous Russian artist Gennady Pavlishin and renowned biologists, researchers, and game experts, Yuri Dunishenko & Alexander Ermoolin, have published a new book about Amur tigers called: "Lord of the Northern Jungle" . The book will be like an encyclopedia, with numerous paintings/illustrations, and interesting information and scientific facts about Amur tigers. Each painting (by artist Gennady Pavlishin) will have a scientific commentary by seasoned biologist & game expert, Yuri Dunishenko, who has over half a century of field experience studying the ecology of Amur tigers and protecting their populations. There's no mention if an English version will be published.  *This image is copyright of its original author The presentation of Gennady Pavlishin's new book "Lord of the Northern Jungle" took place in the Khabarovsk scientific library. It was presented to the public on International Tiger Day. The book is a joint work of the People's Artist of the RSFSR and biologists-game experts. Legends, myths and scientific facts about the Amur tiger are accompanied by illustrations that Gennady Dmitrievich collected over many years.
On the hundred pages of the new book “Lord of the Northern Jungle”, Gennady Pavlishin has collected more than 70 illustrations - images of the main Far Eastern cat and scenes from the life of the indigenous peoples of the Amur region. "These are works that were done over many years. They include illustrations from Sysoev's Golden Rigma and some modern works that he drew. That's why it's such a voluminous book, like a small encyclopedia, because it's the work of different years," said artist, illustrator, and daughter of the artist Natalia Pavlishina. Each sketch is accompanied by a professional commentary from a world-famous scientist with half a century of experience. Researcher-pathfinder Yuri Dunishenko was awarded a presidential certificate of honor for his great personal contribution to the study and preservation of the Amur tiger population. "It was the beginning of the 90s, when there were notices on every lamppost saying 'Skin of a killed tiger for sale'. That was the beginning of the capitalist market. The population had fallen into great decline, many tigers had been shot, killed, and so we raised the world community, so to speak, held a symposium here in Khabarovsk, there were foreigners there. In short, we identified the problem with the Amur tiger," said Yuri Dunishenko, author of the book 'Lord of the Northern Jungles'. The co-author of The Lord of the Northern Jungle is also biologist and gamekeeper Alexander Yermolov, who heads the Biosphere charity foundation. The organization has already published 7 books about Far Eastern nature. All of them, like the new edition, are intended to draw people's attention to the problem of preserving rare species of flora and fauna. "The idea of publishing this book belongs to Pavlishin. He has been thinking about it for a long time, and he has a lot of illustrations on this topic, specifically on the topic of the tiger. In my opinion, no one can convey the image of this animal, the character of the animal better than him, this is a real king of animals, the lord of the jungle," said the author of the book "Lord of the Northern Jungle" Alexander Ermoolin. The circulation of "Lord of the Northern Jungle" is one thousand copies. It will be available in bookstores and libraries in Khabarovsk and Primorsky Krai. https://khabarovsktv.ru/news/prezentaciy...habarovske https://zapovedamur.ru/news/tpost/trgh8s...-dzhunglei https://hab.aif.ru/society/kniga-o-tigra...habarovske https://toz.su/newspaper/proekty/gennadi...azy_tigra/
Research done on tigers in Bangladesh
In the aftermath of 1971 Indo-Pakistan war, Bangladesh was formed after gaining its independence from Pakistan. Politics and history aside, Bangladesh is home to huge array of flora and fauna. This includes megafauna like tigers, leopards (maybe vagrants but still), dholes, small cats, elephants, crocodiles and large serpents. One is consistent among all of them, they are all high endangered animals. Since independence, a fair amount of research have been conducted on the flora and fauna of the country. BUT vast majority of the research and conservation efforts have been focussed on the tiger. Here is a compilation of sources that give a comprehensive look at the conditions of tigers in Bangladesh. From 'Appraising carnivore (Mammalia: Carnivora) studies in Bangladesh from 1971 to 2019 bibliographic retrieves: trends, biases, and opportunities' LINK Abstract In contrast to <7% natural forest covers and >1,000 people living km-2, Bangladesh, one of the smallest countries in Asia, shelters 28 carnivorous mammals. The species are of six families, nearly half of the entire carnivore diversity of the Indian Subcontinent. Carnivores of Bangladesh are little understood and they are disappearing fast despite receiving stern protection. Yet, there has been no assessment on the status of existing knowledge. A review was aimed to assess the existing knowledge and evaluate the research trends in country’s mammalian carnivores. Peer-reviewed works published from 1971 to 2019 were skimmed and categorized systematically according to five traits: publication type, research topic, time of publication, region, and species of study. In a total of 95 works examined, substantial numbers were on tiger (n=45) and the Sundarbans (n=47). In imbalance to action plans procured for tiger conservation, 14 carnivores have never been exclusively studied in Bangladesh. Of the research topics, preference was evident for wildlife management and conflict analyses as there were 31 scientific papers out of 63 in these categories. Inventory compilation for books (18 of 24) comprised the next preferred subject. The assessment could identify gaps in related knowledge in different regions of the country. Eastern region has experienced a meagre amount of work, although its mixed evergreen forests have larger combined area than the Sundarbans, and is known for its higher richness of diversity. Exclusive works outside legally defined protected areas were also low. We found no works in northwestern and southern Bangladesh. In the last two decades, the temporal trajectory of research effort has been more, and the topics have started to diversify. In order to improve conservation practices, we stress that gaps in knowledge pertaining to region or subject may be bridged with contemporary study techniques. This is crucial to highlight the status of carnivore species that are otherwise ‘elusive’, ‘apparently absent’, or ‘least-known’. Important information: "Researches on Tiger, a flagship species of Bangladesh, make over half of all carnivore research counts. On the contrary, a single study was found on an occurrence record of leopard. The Indian Leopard Panthera pardus was thought to have been extirpated from Bangladesh. Among media reports, that may sometime form the beginning to a proper field research (Singh 2020), the term ‘leopard’ appears to be confused with that of Fishing Cat. In the last 12 years, based on verifiable media reports, however, there were instances of 16 Leopards appearing from northern and eastern corners of Bangladesh, each from different cases; six of which were killed as retaliatory responses (Akash et al. submitted). Bear is another charismatic carnivore yet got only one published scientific paper and one book chapter on status assessment (Sarker 2006; Islam et al. 2013; IUCN Bangladesh 2015)." "Tiger is undoubtedly a flagship icon for Bangladesh, yet, the country harbors many other remarkable carnivores and unique habitats. Our knowledge on most of their ecology and management strategies are at a bare minimum. This paucity hinders adequate regional and global conservation attention and practices. Therefore, this assessment of the trend of research on mammalian carnivores highlights the gaps in research. Developing more comprehensive knowledge and researched data are expected to aid in future management across the regions where scientific investments have been traditionally low, the availability of data have been sparse and action for conservation is an exigency." PhD Theses (n=5) on the tiger in Bangladesh: Adam Barlow. The Sundarbans tiger: adaptation, population status and conflict management LINK Monirul Khan. Ecology and conservation of the Bengal tiger in the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh LINK Suprio Chakma. Assessment of large mammals of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh with emphasis on tiger (Panthera tigris) LINK Mohammad A. Aziz. Population status, threats, and evolutionary conservation genetics of Bengal tigers in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh LINK Samia Saif. Investigating tiger poaching in the Bangladesh Sundarbans LINK Reza, A.H.M.A. 2000. Ecology of Bengal tiger, Panthera tigris tigris (Linn. 1758) in the Sundarbans [I couldn't find the link] The following is a collection of literature on various aspects of tiger biology and conservation in Bangladesh Biology (Ecology, behaviour, reproductive biology, home range etc) [n=4]
Conservation (Human-Tiger conflict, conservation research, strategies etc) [n=5]
Key points derived from this post:
 *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author
More information about the Tiger (Panthera tigris) in Bangladesh
Six PhD theses have been conducted on the tiger in Bangladesh. The tiger is the most well-researched animal in the country but there is still so much to research and implement that information if we are to ensure their long-term survival. There have been two Action Plans on the conservation of the tiger in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Tiger Action Plan 2009-2017 & Bangladesh Tiger Action Plan 2018-2027 LINK-1 LINK-2  *This image is copyright of its original author 'Tigers in the Mangroves Research and Conservation of the Tiger in the Sundarbans of Bangladesh' is authored by Dr Monirul H. Khan about the ecology and conservation of the tiger in Bangladesh and he also gives information of the tigers' historic range in the country. LINK  *This image is copyright of its original author Hasan Arif Rahman is a PhD candidate in the University of Delaware. Here he describes his PhD Research (it is still not complete). His project title is 'Swamp Tigers and Climate Change in the Bangladesh Sundarbans'. "I'm investigating how change will affect the future of the tiger distribution in this low-lying delta. Tigers are a globally endangered species. However, Sundarban is one of the last remaining strongholds, which is also evolutionary in significant development, where tigers survive in a semi-acquatic environment. However, climate change is having an impact in this tiger landscape. My research will investigate how tigers are using this habitat during the prolonged flood of monsoon season and how the change in vegetation pattern will have an impact on tiger distribution in the future. Protecting this last remaining stronghold of the Swamp Tigers needs meticulous decision making and robust science." He also conducted research on the mammalian fauna of the Chittagong Hill Tracts and Northeast Bangladesh (two very biodiverse regions of the country).  (08-04-2024, 11:50 AM)TheHyenid76 Wrote: More information about the Tiger (Panthera tigris) in Bangladesh They are doing most excellent work, and their efforts are beginning to bear fruit.  (08-01-2024, 10:28 PM)TheHyenid76 Wrote: @peter @Apex Titan & other tiger enthusiasts. This a comparison between a Bengal tiger and an Amur tiger. Source. Is it accurate? HYENA Nice comparison (referring to ground colour, stripe frequency, stripe pattern and the colour of the stripes in particular), but questionable in the size department. Conclusions about the size of an average healthy wild adult tiger have to be based on large samples. There are few and this is the main problem with comparisons and statements about size. About the methods used to measure a big cat and the length and weight of an average adult wild male Indian tiger A century ago, in what used to be British India, there was a discussion about the length of tigers and the way they should be measured in a few magazins. In spite of Sterndale's sound advice to measure big cats 'between pegs', hunters continued to measure tigers in different ways. In most regions, most tigers were measured with a flexible tape. All curves of the body were followed, enabling hunters to get to impressive records at times. The problem with this method is it can be applied in different ways. In northern India, it was applied in a strict way. This 'reduced' the length of tigers to a degree. Same for Nepal. In northeastern and southern India, however, it was applied in a somewhat different way. In the Central Provinces and most of southwestern India, most tigers were measured in a straight line (referring to the shortest distance between two pegs at the tip of the nose and the tip of the tail measured with a steel tape). Those who read the countless letters published in different magazins no doubt concluded an average adult male tiger, depending on the region, averaged between 8.9 (southeastern India) and 9.5 (northern India and Nepal) in total length (referring to measurements taken in a straight line). In central parts of India (Dunbar Brander), male tigers averaged 9.3 and 420 pounds. Tigers shot in the Deccan were closer to 400 pounds, but in northern (Hewett) and northeastern parts of India (the Maharajah of Cooch Behar) they were a bit longer (northern India) and heavier (northern and northeastern India). Length is a factor to consider, but there are more, like weight and skull size. The information needed is available (referring to tigers shot in Nepal and what used to be British India), but the main problem, again, is smallish samples. Another factor to consider is experienced hunters in particular often targeted large individuals. Of these, they selected the largest for a letter. In order to get to a sound conclusion, many questions have to be answered. When is a tiger adult? What is a 'healthy' tiger? What is the most reliable method to measure a wild big cat? What is the character of a district or region that has tigers? Do similar districts and regions produce similar tigers? If no, why. What animals do tigers hunt? All in all, regarding British India, I'd say most adult (at least 5 years of age) males ranged between 8.8-9.6 in total length measured in a straight line ('between pegs'). At that length, they ranged between 350-500 pounds. In greatest total skull length, the range was 13-14,5 inches. When you visit animal forums, chances are you'll only find discussions about (the size of) exceptional individuals. The info I have suggests large individuals, depending on the region, were 25-35% heavier than an average adult male. This means large males shot in 'hotspots', like many hunters and Forest Officers stated, were able to reach 550-600 pounds (empty) or a bit more. There are reliable reports about heavier males, but nearly all of them were loaded with beef when they were shot. Furthermore, most of these records were based on estimates. Estimates of experienced woodsmen and Forest Officers, but estimates. Reliable information suggests there isn't much to choose between tigers shot a century ago and today's tigers. According to Guate, today's (referring to tigers captured after, say, 1970) adult males average about 200 kg. In northern and northeastern India, the average could be a bit higher, but in the Sunderbans tigers are much smaller. Conclusions about total length are tentative at best, because biologists today, most unfortunately, also measure wild tigers 'over curves'. What I have suggests tigers today are quite similar to tigers shot a century ago. Exceptional individuals range(d) between 10.0-10.9 in total length measured 'over curves' and 9.7-10.4 when measured 'between pegs'. Large males reach 6.8-7.3 in head and body length measured in a straight line. The averages of tigers shot in Myanmar, Thailand and Malaysia (Panthera tigris corbetti) are a bit lower, but there are quite many reliable reports about males well exceeding 440 pounds and 9.2 in total length measured in a straight line. About the length and weight of wild male Amur tigers Reliable information about the length and weight of wild adult Amur tigers is hard to come by. What I found suggests it's safe to say most tigers were measured 'over curves' a century ago. Biologists today measure tigers in the same way. It's not easy to say how a tiger measured 'over curves' compares to a tiger measured 'between pegs'. A century ago (referring to British India), the difference (in adult males) was 2-5 inches in northern India and Nepal and 4-7 inches in most other regions. The heaviest wild male Amur tiger accepted by today's biologists was shot in 1911 near the Korean border by N. Baikov. That male, longer than average but not exceptional, was 560 pounds (254 kg). Baikov shot tigers considerably longer and heavier, but most of his records, for different reasons, were not accepted. Same for the very large male shot in 1943 in Manchuria by Sin-En-Tschzhin. He hunted with W.J. Jankowski, a son of the famous J.M. Jankowski, and informed V. Mazak about the tiger in a letter of May 8, 1970. In the third edition of his book 'Der Tiger' (1983, pp. 186), you can find a photograph of the tiger. As to today's tigers. In 1992, the Siberian Tiger Project (STP) started. In 2005, a table was published with information about the size of tigers captured in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve (and it's surroundings). These tigers were captured in the period 1992-2004. The table said males averaged 389 pounds (176,4 kg) and 294 cm in total length (measured 'over curves'). The problem is tigers of 3 years and older were included. A pity, as reliable information strongly suggests (see the remarks about Sumatran tigers at the end of the post) differences between young adults and adults (5 years and older) are quite outspoken in the skull department. Another point to consider is the tigers were captured in one reserve only. In that period (1992-2004), in that reserve, an adult male of 200 kg and 300 cm in total length (measured 'over curves') was considered as 'large'. In that part of the Russian Far East, an adult male tiger of that length and weight still is. The heaviest males captured in (different districts of) Primorye in the period 2005-2012 ranged between 200-212 kg. In the period 1992-2023, the number of tigers living in the Russian Far East and northeastern China roughly doubled. Although tigers are still poached, conditions in general improved. Today (2024), there are at least 700 wild Amur tigers. They live in the Russian Far East, northeastern China and, possibly, the northern part of North Korea. The problem is most tigers measured and weighed by biologists were captured in (a few districts of) Primorye only. As far as I know, no adult male tigers have been captured in the Khabarovsky Krai and the northern part of China and Korea. In the southern part of northeastern China, however, a few tigers have been captured and weighed. According to Feng Limin, two males were 250 and 270 kg. Were they actually weighed, or was the weight a result of a few measurements and regression? We don't know. We do know a young adult male arrested for domestic violence was 225 kg. In the Khabarowski Krai, as far as I know, no adult males have been captured and weighed. A pity, as information collected by A. Gotvansky suggests some males in the Anyuisky National Park were large, if not exceptional. One of them, nicknamed 'The Beast', almost compared to a " ... very large old male brown bear ... " Gotvansky knew well. Apart from Gotvansky's info, there's Victor Lukarevsky. He's as experienced as they come and said adult males, in his opinion, average 220-240 kg. He added 280 kg isn't the upper limit. What he said, to put it mildly, contradicted the information collected in the Sichote-Alin Biosphere Reserve (and it's surroundings) a few decades ago (see above). The difference between 176,4 kg on one hand and 220-240 kg on the other is significant. Lukarevsky added individual variation in adult wild male tigers is pronounced, but a difference of 53,5 kg (118 pounds) at the level of averages (230-176,5) is difficult to explain. However. It is possible Lukarevsky referred to healthy adult males only. The table published in 2005 included a number or young adults and a male in very bad condition. Although the average, according to Guate (referring to one of his last posts in this thread), was 'corrected', it's quite likely the young adults, although some, as Lukarevsky said, can be very large, had an effect on the average, especially when the sample is smallish. Furthermore, the number of wild Amur tigers roughly doubled in the period 1992-2024. As it's likely large populations produce more outlyers, it's also likely individual variation will be more pronounced. Also remember conditions between 1992-2024 improved. This means more tigers, including large males, have the opportunity to reach adulthood and old age. Last but not least is male Amur tigers, averaging 303.1 cm (well over 9.11) in total length measured in a straight line and 224,2 kg (almost 495 pounds), are the largest big cats in captivity (referring to the tables I posted about a year ago). Although the sample with body measurements is small (n=14), the sample with weights is large (n=61). This means the weight average in particular is quite reliable. As it's known wild tigers (referring to opinions of hunters a century ago and a limited number of recent charts) are a bit longer and, in particular, heavier than their captive relatives, it seems quite safe to assume for now it isn't any different in Amur tigers. This means Lukarevsky's information about the weight of healthy adults in their best years can't be excluded out of hand. Same, I think, for his opinion on the size of exceptional individuals. The reason, again, is the information I posted about captive male Amur tigers. The heaviest males (not referring to obese individuals) ranged between 280-320 kg (618-706 pounds). This is without the, reliable, record about a male of 442,4 kg (!) in a recent publication from China, because of a lack of details. Anything known about the size of captive adult male Indian tigers? The answer is affirmative. I posted a few tables some time ago. Apart from that, I read a recent article that had information about the weight of a number of male Indian tigers in a zoos in Pakistan. The conclusion I got to is captive adult male Indian tigers average 400-420 pounds (range 380-460 pounds). I also saw a number of recent videos posted at YouTube. The average of adult male tigers in zoos located in northern India and Nepal could be a bit higer, but that's an opinion only. Apart from that, there's a bit of information about the actual standing height at the shoulder of captive adult male Indian and Amur tigers. I'm referring to the books of K. Sankhala (1977) and V. Mazak (1983) and a few other publications. I also measured a number captive adult male Amur tigers and lions in a Dutch facility a few decades ago. Apart from that, I used information posted in some of the threads of Wildfact. What I found suggests captive adult male Indian tigers ranged between 88-100 cm, whereas captive adult male Amur tigers ranged between 95-112 cm. The difference between both subspecies, again, is significant. All in all, I'd say adult captive male Amur tigers are larger than captive adult male Indian tigers in all respects. Exceptional male Indian tigers no doubt are very close, but I didn't find anything I consider reliable. In wild adult males of both subspecies, it's much more difficult to get to conclusions. The reason is a lack of reliable information (referring to decent samples). I repeat one of the trainers I interviewed (Tony Hughes) saw captive male Indian tigers in an American facility some decades ago. He told me all tigers were descendants of true Indians tigers captured a long time ago. They were the largest captive big cats he saw by a margin and he no doubt saw many. In one of his books, Hagenbeck referred to a very wild male captured in India (and not one of the neighbouring countries). He nev er used the tiger for a show. In his opinion, it was the largest Indian tiger he had seen. He too had seen many. The only Indian tiger I ever saw compared to the captive male Amur tigers I had measured in most respects. He most probably ranged between 190-210 kg and was in excellent condition. About the greatest total skull length of adult male Indian and Amur tigers In a paper published in November 2022 (to be discussed soon), it was concluded wild male Indian tigers shot in the days of the British Rai average 349-350 mm in greatest total length. Skulls of wild male Amur tigers averaged 345-346 mm. Reliable information? Yes. But. The problem with the Amur sample, at least in my opinion, is it has a number of skulls of (what seem to be) young adults. Furthermore, one has to remember the skulls V. Mazak measured almost half a century ago were not included in the sample because they're no longer in the museum where he measured them (...). Meaning our former member 'WaveRiders' was right. Nobody knows what happened to the skulls. The skulls I measured (referring to skulls of captive Indian and Amur tigers) strongly suggest Amur tigers have longer skulls, whereas those of Indian tigers are (relatively) heavier. A result of sample size? Could be. There are few skulls of captive (and wild) Indian and Amur tigers in European natural history museums. I'll continue about skulls in the next post. About the post of Apex I agree in most respects, but have some doubts about the skull and paw remarks. In my experience, skulls of (captive) Indian tigers are (relatively) heavier than those of (captive) Amur tigers (and not the other way round). Amur tiger skulls are more elevated, a bit flatter and longer. They also have wider rostrums and larger canines. Amur tigers have large paws, but there's not enough information about the size of the paws of male Indian tigers to get to a conclusion. About young adults, adult and definitions used by biologists and zoologists The only tiger subspecies of which I measured enough skulls to get to a few conclusions is the Sumatran tiger (Panthera tigris sumatrae). The tables I made show well defined differences between skulls of captive and wild tigers. Same for the skulls of adult and young adults. With 'well defined', I mean the differences at the level of averages are significant. As differences in large subspeciues usually are more outspoken, chances are the differences between adult and young adult Amur tigers are more pronounced. About tigers living just south of the Himalayas Based on what I read and saw (referring to the big cats I measured in a former facility in the Netherlands), I tend to agree with V. Mazak. He wrote the Amur tiger is the largest subspecies (at the level of averages), but added exceptional Indian tigers (almost) compare. That remark, most probably, was without tigers living just south of the Himalayas (nothern India and Nepal). They seem to be the largest wild cats today (also referring to the countless tables I posted about the length and weight of wild adult male tigers shot in northern India and Nepal a century ago). Nobody knows if they compare to wild adult male Amur tigers because of the lack of reliable information, but my guess for now is they're very close in most respects. Biologists and size The countless discussions about the size of (wild and captive) big cats, to keep it short, mainly are a result of a lack of large and reliable samples. Are biologists to blame? To a degree. Their job, however, is to collect information about the ecosystems big cats use. That and conservation. Seen in this light, they did a great job (referring to Russia, northeastern China, Nepal, India, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia and, to a degree, Sumatra). Size isn't on the list of priorities for biologists. And when they share information about the size of wild big cats, most refer to well-known samples. The main reason, I think, is it takes a lot of time to visit natural history museums and measure every skull yourself. If you want to get to decent samples and solid conclusions, you need years. Furthermore, at least in my opinion, you have to see, hold and measure skulls yourself in order to make sure they're measured in the same way. The more skulls you see, the better the chance to get to good conclusions. Personal experience also enables you to get to observations and insights seldom discussed in papers and articles. There's a lot more to skulls than size only. About big cats, size and posters The lack of interest of biologists in size means posters interested in (the size of wild) big cats are on their own. What I found about wild Amur tigers suggests males of 5 years and older (Sumatran tigers suggests 6 could be more accurate) range between 140-270 kg, perhaps a bit more (Lukarevsky) or less (old tigers unable to visit a dentist, like 'Tikhon'). There seem to be regional differences, both in the Russian Far East and in India. Most of us think size is a result of the (density and) size of prey animals, but Amur tigers suggest this is not quite the case. A century ago, most experienced hunters and Forest Officers thought there was a connection between age and size in tigers. Mature tigers often were longer and heavier than younger adults. They also had longer, wider and heavier skulls (referring to averages). If age really is a factor, and the skulls I saw point in that direction, conservation and protection could be as important as the size of the animals they hunt. A century ago, protection resulted in a difference of 4 inches (referring to total length measured 'over curves') between adult male tigers shot in Nepal and adult male tigers shot in northern India. One reason was hunters often selected large individuals. Another was hunting resulted in a lower average age. All this still is without genes. Meaning we still don't know enough to get to conclusions. About the size of adult male tigers in mainland Asia a few centuries ago After reading many books and articles, I concluded there most probably was little to choose between adult males in most of mainland Asia a century ago. Male tigers well exceeding 9 feet in total length measured in a straight line have been shot in the Russian Far East, some parts of China, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, India and even (the southern tip of) Malaysia. The differences between subspecies (referring to information collected by reliable observers and biologists) were mainly visible at the level of averages. Visible in the skull department as well? Affirmative. About the (unintended) effect of definitions, sample size and selection in tables, papers and articles - skulls Tables need to be based on reliable measurements taken by those who know how to measure a skull of a big cat. Coinclusions need to be based on large samples. I recently read 'Phenotypic plasticity determines differences between the skulls of tigers from mainland Asia' (Cooper, M. et al, 2022). In this paper (referring to the dataset), you can find 57 measurements from 172 specimens (skulls of captive and wild tigers) in 14 natural history museums and national institutions. The paper, most unfortunately, has no tables offering the fundamentals of the skulls (referring to tables, averages and range) of the different subspecies. Meaning I had to do it myself. Took a lot of time, but I got there in the end. The classified results say Amur tigers (referring to both captive and wild males) have slightly shorter skulls than wild Indian tigers shot a long time ago. Amur tiger skulls (again referring to males only) also are a bit narrower. The problem (for the authors) was skulls of wild male Amur tigers, although slightly smaller than those of adult male Indian tigers, have slightly larger crests than wild male Indian tigers. A response to differences in their environments, the authors concluded. Question answered and problem solved. There's a lot to say about the skulls and tables. The table with information about wild Indian male tigers (referring to the one I made asfter going over all 172 skulls in the dataset) has a lot of skulls of what must have been large, old males shot a long time ago. Most skulls, as Pocock (1929) said almost a century ago, exceed 14 inches in greatest total length. The age of the former owners is also visible in the zygomatic width and the rostrum width. And the size of the crest. The table with information about (skulls of) wild male Amur tigers, in contrast, has few skulls of large, old males. In fact, not a few of the former owners might have been young adults. It's an assumption, of course, but one based on a bit of experience (referring to the skulls of captive young adult and adult Amur tigers I measured). The average greatest total length of a (quite) limited number of skulls (the sample of wild male Indian tigers is significantly larger) is 345-346 mm. Case closed? Not quite. The skulls V. Mazak measured are not in the table of the paper, because they 'disappeared' a few years ago. A pity, because his sample, although smallish as well, had information about skulls of both old and young adult wild males (and wild females). The information in 'Notes on the Siberian long-haired tiger, Panthera tigris altaica (Temminck, 1844), with a remark on Temminck's Fauna Japonica' (Mammalia, 31(4), pp. 517-573, 1967) is interesting in many respects. Same for the info in 'Der Tiger' (third edition, 1983). That's still apart from information about the (the size of) skulls of (captive and wild male) Amur tigers in a number of other publications. What I'm saying is it apparently isn't about reliable data and decent samples only. Selection also is important. Same for definitions (referring to the difference between young adults and adults in particular). The reason is these factors have an effect (on averages and conclusions). The authors of the paper mentioned above (Cooper et al, 2022), for instance, concluded rostrums of wild male Amur tigers are narrower than the rostrums of their captive relatives. In their tables, there was no difference between wild male Indian and wild male Amur tigers in this respect. Wild males of both subspecies averaged 97-98 mm. The skulls of adult wild male Amur tigers V. Mazak (1967) measured, however, had wide rostrums. The average of 6 adult wild male Amur tigers wasn't 97-98 mm, but just over 106 mm. Quite a difference. As to their conclusion on crests (referring to those involved in the paper published in 2022). The authors concluded the relatively large crest of wild male Amur tigers was a response to the environment. When you go over all skulls of wild male Indian tigers and wild male Amur tigers, however, you'll quickly notice the correlation between skull size (greatest total length) and the size of the crest. If a skull is large, to keep it short, chances are the crest is large. Age also seems to be a factor. Reliable data and large samples are needed to get to reliable conclusions, but selection also is a factor. I could, for instance, produce a table 'proving' without a shadow of doubt that skulls of large wild male tigers shot in Johore (the southern tip of Malaysia) a century ago are every bit as large as skulls of large wild male Amur tigers shot in the same period. The problem is selection in that I would only use skulls in natural history museums and omit those mentioned in quite a few reliable publications. I'm not trying to ridicule those involved in the paper mentioned above. Far from it. The paper is interesting and well written from start to finish. The skulls used were accurately measured and all skulls belonged to what they consider to be 'adult' males. However. The authors didn't use the opportunity to include good information provided by other biologists. Another problem is there's, definitionwise, a difference between what they consider to be adult and what others consider to be good indicators of age in a skull. The shortest skulls of captive adult male Amur tigers I know of were 333, 335 and 340 mm in greatest total length. In all 3 skulls, the additional measurements left no doubt as to the age of the former owner in that all were adult. Skulls of young adult males can be as long. V. Mazak measured 5 skulls that, in his opinion, belonged to immature or young adult males. They ranged between 287,7-335 mm in greatest total length. The shortest skull belonged to a male about 2,5 years of age. Two skulls of immature males were 290 and 296 mm, whereas 2 other skulls were 331 and 335 mm. Additional measurements (referring to rostrum width and zygomatic width) of the last 2 skulls strongly indicated they belonged to young adult males. I'm not saying skulls of (captive or wild) adult male Amur tigers are at least 330 mm in greatest total length, but the additional measurements strongly suggests it's quite close. The information collected by those involved in the paper discussed above, by the way, suggests there are no significant differences between wild and captive adult males (referring to greatest total length of the skull). Wild males have the edge, but the margins are limited. In general, captive male tigers have less elevated, flatter and wider skulls. Most skulls of captive adult males seem to be asymmetrical to a degree. They also often have a lot of superfluous (dysfunctional) growths. When skulls are similar in size, those of wild males often are heavier. In the teeth department, the differences often are outspoken. One thing I learned over the years is differences considered as 'typical' between different tiger subspecies (referring to wild tigers only) are mainly visible in skulls of adult males. In skulls of wild adult females, the differences are much more limited. When the focus is not on measurements, however, differences between subspecies become much more visible. The 'king' of tigers The information I have says there's not much to choose between individuals at the level of subspecies. Measurementwise, differences are mainly visible at the level of averages. Individual variation in all subspecies is pronounced. The larger the species, the more outspoken the difference. Exceptional individuals are more often seen in large populations. For now, I'd say it's close to undecided at the level of averages. At the level of individuals it's close as well. In captive big cats, however, adult male Amur tigers top the table. To conclude One can only hope tigers (and all other big cats) will get more room in the near future. That, better conditions and less humans. Wild apex predators, like big cats, and humans just don't mix. Never did and never will, apart from the occasional exception. If this is accepted, many conflicts will be prevented. Nobody wants to find the poor remains of what used to be a human in a remote corner of the forest. Same for the remains of what used to be splendid big cat killed by poachers. If big cats (and all other wild animals) get the room they need and deserve, chances are wild animals reach their full glory like they did a few centuries ago. If you don't have the opportunity to see them, read books written by those who did. They'll tell you every adult wild big cat is a true 'king'.
@peter
Regarding my remarks about the skull sizes, to me, the skulls of wild male Amur tigers look (on average) slightly more wider and vaulted than Bengal tiger skulls. This is the impression I get when I see videos and pictures of fully-grown mature males of both subspecies. Although I have seen numerous Bengal tigers with truly massive skulls/heads that rival any huge male Amur tiger's skull. I also noticed that Amur tigers have slightly larger and more arched canines than Bengal tigers. This may be due to the types of prey they hunt. I agree there's not enough info on Bengal tigers to get to a conclusion, but I assume Amur tigers would have slightly larger paws (like snow shoes) because of the terrain (deep & heavy snow) they live in and traverse through. Larger paws would be suited more for the frozen, snow covered forests of the taiga. I don't think Bengal tigers would need as large paws due to living in a more tropical climate and habitat. But then again, maybe they do, because of the much larger prey animals they hunt (gaur, wild buffalo, rhino, etc) than Amur tigers. Who knows. But what we do know, is that the true average sizes/weights of modern Amur tigers remains a mystery. And I highly doubt we'll ever know. Those days of biologists actively trying to capture, measure and weigh wild adult male tigers are long gone. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |