Who is the "king" of tigers? - Bengal or Amur

[Pckts]

(02-05-2015, 01:00 AM)'WaveRiders' Wrote: tigerluver
 
That is absolutely true but I did not want to complicate the matter too much. I remember in 2004 in AVA I estimated similar figures speculating also on faecal rate, average faecal mass, fluid mass flow (water in and urine out) and so on arriving at figures of 215 kg and 128 kg for adult males and females respectively, but there were included also some different assumptions. It has past a long time since then and I am getting old for those kind of elaborated speculations. My purpose was to refine empty stomach body mass differentiating the data from Sunquist (1981) and Smith et al. (1983) for adult males and adult females.
 
 
BTW
Errata-Corrige: Average food intake in the first 24 hours 17,7 kg
 
As a further mathematical exercise I considered the body mass of each individual instead of the sex/age class weigh to get collectively the average 14,0 kg of food intake in the first 24 hours and I obtained slightly different results as follows
 
Adult males : average body mass at empty stomach 217,0 kg (heaviest 241,5 kg again following Kleiber’s Law)
Average food intake in the first 24 hours 18,0 kg
 
Adult females : average body mass at empty stomach 127,9 kg (heaviest pregnant 150,4 kg / non-pregnant 140,1 kg adult female again following Kleiber’s Law)
Average food intake in the first 24 hours 12,1 kg
 
 
Pckts

How can you compare the Smuts sample of Kruger lion weights all corrected for stomach contents with Chitawan tiger weight sample where the capturing technique implicated an almost certain 12/18 hours of feeding in the very most if not all cases before the weighing operation and no estimated stomach contents was accounted? Mine is therefore an attempt to account for the statistical impact of any likely stomach contents in the sample based on info on capturing technique, ecology data and any biology consideration that can help to refine the estimates. It is up to each one to use actual data or data modified in the most sensible way. It depends from the contest and from the consistency with other data when doing comparisons and other statistical analyses.


                  WaveRiders
 

 

 

Chitwan tigers were bottomed out. So the alleged weight is the barest minimum. Without knowing the exact weight over the 272kg and 227kg scale that was bottomed out, its impossible to put a number on it. So if you are adjusting 17kg for "gorged" but only subtracting it to the weight estimated weight you won't necessarily get a correct average. I think the "gorged" idea should be noted but not used in finding the average weight. Since there are many factors that play a role in what a big cat will consume compared to what it has actually consumed.

Here are the weights I see for smuts

*This image is copyright of its original author

and another (not sure if this is smuts or not)

*This image is copyright of its original author

So if smuts lions were "gorged" I would rather use the actual weight measured and just note that they were gorged. But when using the Chitwan tigers the # could still be higher even with the gorged factor subtracted due to the bottomed out scale. So subtracting an estimated "gorge weight" to a minimum total will still give you smaller weight than what most likely it actually is.

In regards to your Tigress weights, here are a few that are larger than what you have listed

*This image is copyright of its original author

Reply