Tiger Predation

[Acinonyx sp.]

Indo-chinese tiger Predation Studies

Study of the Indochinese tiger (Panthera tigris corbetti Mazak, 1968) population and habitat use in Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary, Chaiyaphum province  [2001]

"Prey species found in tiger dung, included : Common Barking Deer (Muntiacus muntjak (Zimmermann) 1780), Common Wild Boar (Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758), Sambar Deer (Cervus unicolor (Kerr) 1792), Laesser Mouse Deer (Tragulus javanicus (Osbeck) 1765) and rats (Muridae). Common Barking Deer constituted over 40 percent of prey."

Ecological Covariates at Kill Sites Influence Tiger (Panthera tigris) Hunting Success in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand

The Number of Tiger’s Kills and Biomass of Species in 150 Kills in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand.

*This image is copyright of its original author

Weights of gaur ( Bos gaurus ) and banteng ( Bos javanicus ) killed by tigers in Thailand
FIGURE  1 Two of the largest prey of tiger in Huai Kha Khaeng

(a) Male tiger feeding on gaur (Bos gaurus). (b) Female tiger and her
cubs feeding on banteng (B. javanicus)

*This image is copyright of its original author

TABLE  1 Mean weights of gaur (Bos gaurus) and banteng (B. javanicus) killed by tigers based on number of kills in different sex and age

classes and published weights of those classes from Ahrestani (2018) and Hoogerwerf (1970)

*This image is copyright of its original author

TABLE 2 Percentage and numbers of sexes and age classes of gaur (B. gaurus and B. Javanicus) killed by male and female tigers

*This image is copyright of its original author

Sumatran Tiger predation
Predicting preferred prey of Sumatran tigers (Panthera tigris sumatrae) via spatiotemporal overlap
"We documented , captures of potential prey species,

with red muntjacs being recorded most frequently, followed
by pig-tailed macaques and mouse deer (Table ). Tigers
exhibited a diurnal activity pattern (Fig. ) and had the high-
est temporal overlap with wild boar, followed by pig-tailed
macaques and sambar (Fig. ,Table ). The highest spatial
overlap was also with wild boar, followed by sambar and
pig-tailed macaques (Table ).
When plotting the values indicating spatial and temporal
overlap of tigers with potential prey species, wild boar and
sambar deer fell in the upper right quadrant, suggesting they
are potentially preferred prey. Tapirs were in the lower left
quadrant, indicating they were probably not preferred, and
the other prey species were in the upper left (high temporal
but low spatial overlap), indicating potential alternative prey
(Fig. ).
Tigers had the greatest spatio-temporal overlap with wild
boar, with a spatial and temporal composite score of .,
which is % higher than the species with the second highest
scores (sambar and pig-tailed macaques, both .



Assessing tiger–prey interactions in Sumatran rainforests


Large carnivore habitat selection should focus on the most profitable patches, where the lowest levels of energy are expended on searching for and then capturing the largest bodied prey with the least risk (Stephens & Krebs, 1987; Scognamillo et al., 2003; Carbone, Teacher & Rowcliffe, 2007). Thus, the Sumatran tiger would be predicted to select sambar (185–260 kg) and tapir (250–540 kg, Boonsong & McNeely, 1988). For sambar, which appeared to be less common in the KS study areas, there were insufficient data to determine activity patterns confidently. However, similarly designed camera-trap studies from southern Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia found sambar to have predominantly crepuscular activity patterns (T. O'Brien, unpubl. data; Laidlaw & Shaharuddin, 1998). The high overlap between tiger and muntjac in our study was strong because both species exhibited peaks of activity around dawn and dusk.



To date, evidence of interactions between tiger and tapir is limited to photographic records of tiger attacks on tapir and speculation over the tapir's status as a prey species (Lynam, 1999; Holden, Yanuar & Martyr, 2003). Even though the tapir was frequently photographed and along trails used by tiger, our analysis found only a low level of temporal overlap; tapir was predominantly nocturnal. Thus, the lack of a tiger–tapir interaction may be because tapir is not a principal prey species, and this lack of relationship is suggested from Malaysia where overlap was low (Kawanishi & Sunquist, 2004). This is surprising because the Bengal tiger, which although larger than the Sumatran tiger (adult males of 180–258 and 100–140 kg, respectively, Nowell & Jackson, 1996), typically kills not only large prey (>176 kg) especially adult sambar but also occasionally adult male gaur Bos gaurus, which can attain an upper body mass of 1000 kg (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995; Andheria, Karanth & Kumar, 2007). Malayan tapir should not, therefore, be too large for a Sumatran tiger to kill.



An alternative explanation for the lack of positive tiger–tapir interaction may be the effect of predation risk on the prey. The ‘ecology of fear’ concept states that prey modify their behaviour by striking a balance for their need to forage against their need to avoid predators (Brown, Laundre & Gurung, 1999). Consequently, this trade-off may result in the avoidance of food-rich habitat patches, either spatially or temporally, which remain unoccupied by prey species if these patches also have significantly higher predation risks. Such risk has been shown to affect physiological and demographic patterns of elk, Cervus elaphus preyed on by grey wolves, Canis lupus (Creel et al., 2007) and spatial patterns of bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis, avoiding open habitats that provide greater visibility for pumas, Puma concolor (Altendorf et al., 2001). As no studies exist of Malayan tapir temporal patterns in areas without tiger, we speculate that the tapir's strong nocturnal activity patterns is advantageous for avoiding its only predator in KSNP the tiger.



In comparison with the tapir, the pig-tailed macaque had an overall overlap coefficient almost identical to that of tapir, but in contrast was strongly diurnal, with significant activity occurring in the middle of the day, which is also the hottest time of the day. During this period, tiger activity was low, presumably because the species was resting. The limited data for wild pig suggest that it is also strongly diurnal (Laidlaw & Shaharuddin, 1998). Finally, there were several other putative prey species recorded in KSNP, argus pheasant Argusianus argus, mouse deer Tragulus spp., porcupine Hystrix brachyura and bearded pig Sus barbatus that may have influenced tiger temporal patterns. However, these were not included in the study as they were not considered to represent principal prey species because of their smaller body size (Karanth & Sunquist, 1995; O'Brien et al., 2003) or, in the case of the migratory bearded pig, an irregular food source.



Ideally, tiger scat samples would have been collected for a dietary analysis of prey species composition, but scats are notoriously difficult to collect in tropical forests, because of low tiger population densities and high scat decay rates, and none were encountered during our field surveys. However, in the absence of difficult-to-collect dietary data, it is also valuable to demonstrate the temporal relationships, as conducted in this study, to provide new and much needed insights into Sumatran tiger–prey interactions. The methodology used here has wide application, especially for future statistical studies of predator–prey interactions or interspecific species competition. Reply