Bear Size ~

[Shadow]

(12-26-2020, 12:08 AM)Maritimus77 Wrote: @Shadow 

"Males reached mean adult size in 7 of the 11 dimensions by 6 years (body length, girth, height at the shoulder, neck circumference, head length, front pad length, and rear pad width) and in all 11 by 9 years."

This is from Blanchard's study. The 4 dimensions that still kept growing until 9y of age were the contour length (body length over the curves), the width of the head, the width of the front pad and the length of the rear pad. So according to the measurements they listed, those male grizzly bears weren't fully grown in all dimensions until the age of 9 years.

This note is from Glenn's work:

"At least 95 percent of ultimate male dimensions of height at shoulder, total body length, body length, hind-foot length, skull length, chest girth and neck circumference were completed by 6 years; weight and total skull size by 8 years and zygomatic width by 10 years."

Note that he is referring to 95% here in contrast to Blanchard's work; based on skull measurements it may last until 10y of age until we can speak of a fully grown brown bear in terms of certain cranial/morphological attributes.

This next quote refers to Blanchard's study again:

"In general, males appeared to steadily gain weight annually until at least 15 years of age (Fig. 2)."

The annual weight growth of males may last until 15y of age; so a fully grown brown bear in terms of body measurements and body weight may be relatively old pushing the 15y mark.


"So claiming that 455 kg would be average weight of Kodiak bears in spring time doesn´t stand up critical scrutiny."

I didn't claim anything so far; I just posted the results of three datasets without any personal evaluation of mine. I agree with you that the sample size is very low and respective changes with an increased sample size are unpredictable. My question therefore: You are a very experienced poster, are you aware of any additional data listing the weight of fully grown Kodiak bears? I am only aware of the 1969 study on them, maybe there is something you have at hand that I don't know about; we might be able to increase the sample size then.

I didn´t see there any real justification to use 9+ years old as fully grown. Trying to push it further and further is artificial thing to do. When looking at it how things are commonly considered, an 8 years old bear can be considered to be fully grown. They do get more robust still, but overall differences are marginal. Some discussion can be when talking about biggest of the big bears, but overall it´s better to use commonly agreed age ranges to avoid confusion. 

And what comes  to sample size of two, it´s beyond low, frankly saying it´s useless. So stating some weight changes 70% based on useless information is just the same. It´s unreliable and useless statement. I´m sorry to be this frank, but here in wildfact idea is to avoid spreading misinformation and sometimes things are said frankly. Reply