ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)

[Vinod]

(11-08-2014, 05:14 PM)'peter' Wrote: THE RELATION BETWEEN TIGER SIZE AND HERBIVORE SIZE

The only tigers that seem to be in the same league today, I think, are those living in north-east India. The difference with other tiger regions is north-east India is the only place where tigers still live next to very large herbivores. In contrast to what many think, some of these tigers really specialize on some of these big herbivores. Immatures are targeted mostly, but adults also are killed at times. This, I think, could explain why some of the Pleistocene tigers were large animals: the larger the herbivores, the larger the tiger. One could say large size probably was a result of plenty of food, but I think tigers really hunted large herbivores. They still do in north-east India.

Any proof? No. But there is circumstantial evidence. The bison-hunting wolves in Canada are larger than anywhere else. Brown bears feasting on salmon in coastal regions are larger than relatives living in other regions. Polar bears are the largest of all bears. Proteine no doubt is the drive in size, but that doesn't mean predators feasting on large animals are scavengers. The extra size they have is a result of hunting large animals, I think. Protein is a deceiving factor, that is.


 

as far as tigers in India are concerned the largest prey they can hunt are the wild buffs, gaurs, young elephants & rhinos, Kaziranga has all of em so it can be concluded that mebbe hunting these large animals has made the tigers here bigger but you'd find similar large herbivores even in Bandipur in southern India & the tigers there are no where near the size of even a central Indian tiger.

Largest herbivore in Panna is I think a sambhar dear, how do you explain the size of Madla & even biggeer Hairyfoot?

I think terrirtorial competitiveness could also be playing a part here, bigger male the better? generally we've seen larger males rule the roost.
  Reply