Modern weights and measurements on wild tigers

[Scout]

(09-12-2020, 01:48 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

(09-11-2020, 09:25 PM)Scout Wrote:

(09-11-2020, 08:57 PM)tigerluver Wrote:

(03-06-2015, 06:24 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Database:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 
Only adults were used. Body length scales near isometrically at 2.94, much different from Bengal scaling of >3.5. Chest girth also scaled negatively allometrically compared other species. The negative allometry might indicate a loss or limit of body/bone density in my opinion, as even a robusticity measurement is negatively allometric.

(03-07-2015, 09:50 AM)tigerluver Wrote:

*This image is copyright of its original author

n=53 for girth relationship. n=30 for length relationship.

The chest girth relationship is bad. Length is moderately strong.

A second for Amurs:

*This image is copyright of its original author

Total length this time, n=21

Note the positive allometry in mass vs. total length in the Amur tiger, opposed to the slight negative allometry in the body length relationship. From this, it looks like tails get proportionately shorter at greater lengths, causing the total length to not look as impressive as the mass of the specimen, when in actuality the specimen is long bodied but just short tailed as the graphs suggest.

Finally, I won't bother with a girth comparison, the correlation is abysmal for the Bengal tiger. But here's the side by side total length comparison:

*This image is copyright of its original author

 

 

 

I ran the analysis on chest girth and weight data 5 years ago. I've quoted the posts with the results.

can you help me a bit to understand how do I put the values here?

My apologies, I should have elaborated. Take the log value of the measurement. Then plug it in for X and multiply by the slope. Then subtract the y-intercept accordingly. Finally, antilog the produced value for the weight in kilograms. For instance, let's use the Amur tiger equation with a chest girth of 140 cm. The steps are:


Log(Mass) = 2.21(Log(chest girth)) - 2.37
Log(Mass) = 2.21(Log(140)) - 2.37
Log(Mass) = 2.21(2.1461) - 2.37
Log(Mass) = 4.74 - 2.37
Log(Mass) = 2.37

Mass = 10^(2.37)
Mass = 234 kg

Note the r^2 values. Low values essentially indicate a weak association. In literature, chest girth seems to be a near useless predictor. This may be due to differing methods of the measurers, as it is more correlated in the STP Amur tiger data.

The lengths should be between the pegs, right? Reply