Modern Weights and Measurements of Wild Lions

[SpinoRex]

(02-15-2022, 02:18 AM)GuateGojira Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 12:40 AM)SpinoRex Wrote: I said before the calculated estimates alone such as MDR are useless. But why? Smuts is assuming that the Kruger lions are larger than the Kenya males, which i doubt in terms of skeleton size(at least not that much). But generally a minimum daily food intake should be in that range but cant give you any idea of the true food intake of a specific lion population.

The numbers labeled as MDR are estimates based on estimates and talking about the minimum(useless to determine the food intake accurately for collared lions as its giving the c. minimum food intake). I was talking about the real food intake of those lions and the clear cut statement from the study(T males did not consume more or less than the estimated MDR, but NT males did) when it comes to prey killed and food intake. One thing that should be noted is that Terretorial males also obtained significantly more meat from the carcass they killed themselves, showing similaritties to nonterretorial males when behaving like them.

But NT males wont be heavier overall with some exceptions or small alliances (which arent fully solitary but still its more or less close to it as killling preys is much easier)

The numbers from the nepal study ate between 14-19 kg on average but calculating the average its c.16 kg for females and c.19 kg for males.

Can you show the specific part in the study of Smuts where he says that? As far I know, Smuts did not calculated any food intake. I want to see the study please.

I am with Pckt on this, it do not make sense that a territorial dominant male, that can or not hunt when he wants, that can go and take any prey from the pride that he wants and that had a much regular prey base, is going to weight less than a male that need to hunt for himself, that do not have a regular prey base and that will have a successfull hunting rate lower than the one of the pride.

Again, in the Nepal study, no one says that females is 16 kg and males is 19 kg, that is not stated in ANY part of the study of Sunquist. In fact, Sunquist himself told be to use 14 kg for both sexes, with no discrimination. I personally estimated that 14 kg will be "ok" for females and 17 kg will be "ok" for males, for stomach content corrections, taking in cound that M-91 (the biggest male from Panna), one of the biggest males captured in India, did had only 19 kg in a full night of feedings, so regular males probably ate less.

I confused it. It isnt smuts study but that doenst matter.

Everytime when we talk about these nonterretorial onse. Remember that they arent even ->terretorial<- ones and at the same time are solitary big cats and that in africa. One must remember that nomadic lion alliances are also nonterretorial males and therefore are included in the study. Those factors for pride lions dont necessary mean being heavy but being more consistent in a healthy and good range, which is the reason they didnt eat more than the MDR. IDK the difference will be big especially talking about a male who is experienced in hunting.

Nonterretorial males did it clearly (13 kg vs 9 kg meat, c.45%). Now if those comparisons are made (comparing solitary big cats and pride big cats) then everyone should be aware of the differences in their food intake and general life style. I dont know how heavy nonterretorials males and small alliances are when they are doing it but they are clearly heavier than pride males. Its even more interesting when you include the fact that nonterretorial males had definetely more to do with hyenas and scavengers (Many of their kills were scavenged by prides as well)

Quote:Spotted hyaenas were rarely present in high numbers atkills made by the different lion group types. They were present least often at kills made by territorial males( X =0.9/kill, N =33 kills, and most often at kills made by nonterritorial males ( X =3.2/kill, N =37 kills).

So once you are comparing a solitary lion with his own area(like a terretory) or something close to it(without living in permanent serious danger).... it will be without any shadow bigger than a pride male. And there is also no doubt because of the sample size (food intake, meat available, prey killed)

Quote:I personally estimated that 14 kg will be "ok" for females and 17 kg will be "ok" for males, for stomach content corrections, taking in cound that M-91 (the biggest male from Panna), one of the biggest males captured in India, did had only 19 kg in a full night of feedings, so regular males probably ate less.

I looked at the average meat consumed on average / day and added it up with the other numbers by looking at the sample size. Also there were only 2 males (M105, 102) analyzed and both consumed 19 kg on average for 3 days looking at the other paper.

But let NT males on the side.... i was more aware of the fact that you assumed tigers eat as much as male lions(no matter what group, even NT males). When you are talking about a terretorial male tiger it wont only live better than most male lions (africa and india compared) but will have also advantages in terms of prey.

A male tiger having a own terretory is basically a NT males who did it(sucessfull). Of course there are other factors, which make it more obvious(the difference) but that alone should do it.

Once a data will be published with terretorial male tigers averaging daily on 9.4 kg i might agree on your point. But in fact that tigers in chitwan overall ate twice as much as a pride males. And before looking at it i checked their dimensions. The chitwan tigers werent special in their frame (length) Reply