Maximum size of prey that a single male lion or tiger can kill

[GuateGojira]

(03-16-2020, 11:55 PM)Pckts Wrote:

(03-16-2020, 11:39 PM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(03-16-2020, 11:33 PM)Pckts Wrote: The weights claimed are estimates and Gaur predation wasn't witnessed, only scat and carcasses observed.
I'm well aware that Tigers hunt Gaur, they do so often but a Big Bull Gaur is in a different league than just a standard Bull Gaur. 
And a 1000kg Bull would be a totally different monster IMO.

Quote:They said that they actually weighed the animals, remember that I asked to Dr Sunquist about that some years ago, and althought the predation was not witnessed in all the cases, you can see in the pictures that they checked the specimens, checking the form that tiger used to kill the specimens. Details of this you can see it in other publications of Dr Karanth. 

I'm sure they can weigh the animals but I doubt Karanth did so and I doubt it's really done at all tbh.
The equipment and man power to do so would be immense and I'd assume it'd have to be a specific study on Bovine size to actually log that data. 

Quote:What is the difference of "big adult gaur" and "standard bull gaur"? That is just your personal assumption, not a real concept used by scientists and also by tigers themselves. 

A big Bull is massive, he's all muscle and his shoulder looks like it stands as tall as I am, which is 6'5'' and they are very thick.
They literally look to be the size of a gypsy when you drive past them. 
Most bulls are much smaller with far less muscular humps and a leaner profile. 
The same goes for Capes, most Bull capes are fairly modest in size but the huge alphas have giant necks and very robust bodies. 
I've seen some massive lions and tigers in my life and they would look like pussy cats next to these big boys. I just have a really hard time seeing as to how they would be successful in a straight up conflict, it seems impossible to me. 

Quote:We have records of tigers attacking huge bulls in old litterature too and if a tiger can kill a rhino, there is no reason why they can't hunt a bull gaur that weigh less.

I know we have records of it happening and I'm sure it has happened but what isn't know is the condition of the animals being attacked *injured, old, already deceased* etc.  
I've began to take most of the accounts with a major grain of salt and I know my criteria is different than others so it gets lost in translation when debating this topic.

Edit: In regards to the Gaur image
Do you know the weight claimed and how much of it was actually consumed?
Also is there a witness to the kill or just a carcass found?
Thank

Let's clarify a couple of points here:

1 - Weight of kills:
You say that you "doubt" and that you "assume" things about the study of Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist, so here you have a problem because if the people that actually made the study are telling you that they have done something that you "think" that they did not, then you are almost calling them "liars" in an indirect form, don't you think? Let me show you this information first. In the document of 1995 (Prey selection by tiger, leopard and dhole in tropical forest) they say this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

In this case we can say that they estimated the weight, but is that correct? Obviously not with the correct interpretation, now let's check this from the book "The Way of the Tiger" of Dr Karanth:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Here he explain that the kills were actually weighed and we can see than after that they figure it out how much the tiger eat, so in that moment is when they make the estimation of the "true" weight of the kill "before" the tiger/leopard/dhole ate. So they actually weighed the animals and Dr Sunquist confirmed that some bulls weighed about 1 ton, he also wrote that in his book "Wild Cats of the World":

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, there is no reason to doubt about what they clearly stated and we must not assume things that are not real. Now and again, if even with this evidence you still doutb about they study, then there is no reason to debate anymore as it will be futile.

2 - Sizes:
The status of "alpha" or "standard" is very subjective and is not a clasiffication used by any scientists in the field. There is certainly a difference between an "average sized male" and a "maximum sized male", the first one been more common. However what is the average size of a bull? Karanth (2001) estimated a range between 500 to 1,000 kg for an adult gaur (no sex stated) and from a sample of 12 males I calculated an average of 831 kg (range: 588 - 1,106 kg). Certainly the gaur is a magnificent animal and very huge, but the tiger is not a dwarf too. Extrapolating the image of the "average sized Bengal tiger" to my old image of the average sized gaur, we can see that tiger is smaller but certainly still capable of killing the huge bull:

*This image is copyright of its original author

For comparison check this lion attacking the bull African buffalo:

*This image is copyright of its original author

If a lion can do it, why a tiger can't? So, the size comparison by personal perception of size is not reliable, as any person can get they own conclutions, and like I said before, if tigers killed adult rhinos, there is no reason why a tiger can't kill and adult gaur.

Interestingly, tiger do hunt gaurs without the element of surprise but in face-to-face conflicts. This was observed by Dr Karanth when he mention that tigers almost never attack gaurs in thick cover (Karanth, 2001, page 56) and also Perry (1965, page 104) quotes to Mr Powell about a record of an instance of "a tiger that deliverately exposed himself, from behind one tree after another, luring the gaur to charge the trees several times, injuring itself severely in so doing. If the gaur tired of charging, the tiger would come out in to open, inciting it to charge again; and after three or four hours of these softening-up tactics finally hamstrung the gaur". So tigers can use several techniques to hunt gaur of any size.

3 - Physical status of the gaur:
Karanth & Sunquist (1995) in table 5 showed that the proportion of gaur kills are: Adult male - 14.6; Adult female - 22.6; Yearling male - 2.0; Yearling female - 2.0; Young - 58.8; average size of gaur killed 287 kg. This make sence as tigers will target the smaller and weaker specimens like any other predator, however in Table 9 they provided the proportion (%) of adult prey animals in different age categories killed by predatros and for gaurs the proportion of "Young" is 48.2, for "Prime" is 42.9 and for "Old" is 8.9. This means that almoust half of the adults were in prime conditions and certainly tigers are not biased toward old sick bull/cow of gaur. Even more, in table 10 they show the proportion (%) of prey animals in differnt physical contition categories killed by predators and for gaur the proportions are: "Good" - 65; "Fair" - 24; "Poor" - 11. This means that most of the gaur killed was in "Good" condition, included the bulls of 1000 kg. Also check this:

*This image is copyright of its original author

So, based in this evidence, it is clear that in Nagarahole NP tigers prey on adult gaur bulls in good conditions and that size alone is not the best defence. Check that the two Dr said "heavy tiger predation" over the gaurs of 500 - 1,000 kg. With this information we can safely say that your assumption that the gaurs attacked were "*injured, old, already deceased* etc." is not correct at all. Evidence provided by the Dr Karanth and Dr Sunqusit shows otherwise. Interestingly, one of the biggest bull gaurs, based in horns size, that Dr Schaller found in Kanha NP was killed by a tiger.

*This image is copyright of its original author

4 - The pic:
In regards to the Gaur image:

*This image is copyright of its original author

* Do you know the weight claimed and how much of it was actually consumed? - No, it doesn't say but check the size of the head, it is huge!
* Also is there a witness to the kill or just a carcass found? - Again, it doesn't say.

Now, is this actualy relevant? No, because the objective of this image is to show you that the carcasses found were actually weighed like Dr Karanth said and that there is no doubt about that. The weight of the animals is irrelevant as we do know that Dr Karanth and Dr Sunquist did stated that bulls of about 1,000 kg were weighed too.

If only the carcass was found, is still posible to reconstruct the event based in the injures. This was even done with the famous "Blue Babe", a Pleistocene bison found in the permafrost of Alaska. Reply