WildFact
›
General Section
›
Debate and Discussion about Wild Animals
Amur and Kaziranga Tigers - Habitat and Prey Analysis
Amur and Kaziranga Tigers - Habitat and Prey Analysis
|
Amur and Kaziranga Tigers - Habitat and Prey Analysis
|
Wouldn't it make sense that if one tiger is thicker in build and heavier in accordance to height and length, that he would be the stronger of the two while sacrificing in agility? Not saying that a Bengal is not quick and agilie, but that a physical difference would make a difference.
Any weight disparity would most likely be as a result of lifestyle (food intake/prey numbers) and not some type of mutated genetic difference within an isolated subspecies population that manifests itself in measurable agility differences.
  (11-24-2014, 05:00 PM)Siegfried Wrote: Any weight disparity would most likely be as a result of lifestyle (food intake/prey numbers) and not some type of mutated genetic difference within an isolated subspecies population that manifests itself in measurable agility differences. Evolution works from mutation. So, technically, the genetics that decrease/increase size mutations will occur, and the preferable sizes will pass those mutations on in their select environment by simply surviving. Remember, there is no direct response in terms of change of an individual to stress, you're born with what you have. 
Spot on Apollo, agreed with everything stated.
We also must remember that Amurs actually carry more fat which helps maintain their body temp. Fat would also force them to be less powerful than a tiger that maintains more muscle. Something else to think about. In terms of Body length or shoulder height, they are practically identical so it won't really matter. Agility is not decreased because of a more muscular frame. Like I already stated, the Top 40 running backs of all time have all had a BMI of higher than 25%, muscle creates agility and power, not decreases it. All of that being said, I still stand by my initial statement that their is no way to determine if there is any discernible difference in agility to 2 unbelievable closely related cats. Its impossible to try and determine for sure, Tigers will have the best body dimensions that support their prey, habitat and terrain. If Kazirangas are indeed that largest cats alive today like we all think. Its because its a mixture of the highest prey availability and size, the highest competition, harsh terrain etc. They are perfect for where they live, all tigers need the same set of skills, So its only natural to see the largest version of that animal as the best physical specimen.  (11-24-2014, 02:16 AM)Apollo Wrote: Nice Debate Good arguments, but not agreed regarding Amur tigers and less frequent encounters with dangerous opponents. India no doubt both has larger and more dangerous animals than Russia, but when a tiger doesn't want to get involved in dangerous encounters, he won't and still has a good life. In Russia, only wild boars and bears pose a risk. The problem for Amur tigers, however, is nearly all bears (young and old, male and female, black and brown and big and small) will risk an encounter in order to get to a tiger kill. It's their livelyhood. Bears are professional blackmailers. I do not doubt tigers will avoid big bears, but if they avoid risks all the time, chances are that the bear who displaced a particular tiger will follow and rob him or her more often. This is what happens in the US and Canada between bears, wolves and cougars and there's no question cougars suffer in that they have to work twice as hard for less food. If a tiger or tigress wants to avoid being displaced or being used as a hunting dog, he or she has no choice but to oppose the blackmailer. And to oppose means to engage. The information I have, in my opinion, clearly suggests there are more encounters between both than many assume. Tigers perish in fights every year. The reason is bears combine speed with strength and agility. They also know how to fight back. Also remember it's very difficult to kill a large bear. And large is 150 kg. and over. Remember the 20-minute fights between experienced male Amur tigers and full-grown brown bear sows? Can you imagine what would happen between a 190-kg. male tiger and a 190-kg. male bear? It would be risky every time, perhaps even more so than with a larger bear. Even if a tiger would defeat a large bear, he would no doubt risk significant injuries. This argument is supported by Amur tigers: even experienced old males seldom attack large sows, let alone adult male bears. Big game in India and south-east Asia is hunted by large male tigers. Because of the size of the prey animals, evolution selected for large tigers. The reason is size helps to quickly subdue. In spite of the impressive results, most big prey animals are unable to fight back. Tigers do get killed every now and then, but more often as a result of a mistake (like arrogance or a slip) than as a result of an agile and clever defence. As soon as the animal starts to get more agile, chances are the outcome of fights or ambushes will change. And not in the tigers favour. Amur tigers no doubt have to work harder for their money and they also face more risks more often. This is apart from deep snow for many months of the year, severe cold, crop failures resulting in mass migration of prey animals, 60.000 registrated hunters hunting similar animals (as well as tigers) and much less prey animals of an interesting size. All this results in an average of 120 kg. for females and 190 kg. for males. I do not doubt they were (and should be) a bit heavier a century ago, but chances are big tigers face too many questions to get and to remain big. My guess is 190-220 kg. would be about right for adult males. In India, male tigers start at that weight if they want to stand a chance in the competition for females. Tigers of 250 kg. and over don't face any real problems. They could get as big as needed for the situation and that's what we see. Size counts in a fight with a member of the same species, but not per se in a fight between a tiger and a bear. Tigers would never be able to outcompete a bear in robustness and weight. In speed and agility, however, they would. It is these qualities that will enable them to get the initiative and to roll out of trouble. Not saying they don't need a bit of parity weightwise, but it wouldn't be decisive. In the end, tigers kill with their teeth and it is in this respect they outcompete bears of similar size or a bit better. The problem is how to user this advantage and evolution said length, large fore-arms, big teeth, speed, agility and endurance are about equal to robustness, mass and strength. A Kazirangha tiger, bigger and more robust, would perhaps be able to fight a bear on equal terms, but a 250-kg. hunter probably would fail more often than not in deep snow and long distances. His only chance, therefore, would be to specialize on bears, meaning he would probably starve in winter when bears, apart from a few 'Schatuns' here and there, hibernate. My guess is a hunter specializing on another hunter often reaching a larger size would struggle more often than not. I mean, who would survive life and death bouts every few weeks for more than a few years? If a wild Amur tiger, however, would get to that weight, he would be able to cope with conditions as well as bears. One way to get to a decent age is to avoid big bears and all-out fights whenever possible. And that's what they do. The same, of course, would hold for a male bear, but he, in contrast to the tiger, wouldn't need to hunt large animals every week. If he would get injured in a fight, he could extort other bears or tigers or he could hunt squirrels or start digging. A tiger unable to hunt would quickly starve. Most tigers learn about bears the hard way, but not all. Some tigers get killed and others face severe problems as a result of serious injuries. Some animals never fully recover. This, I think, explains the large number of 'problem tigers' in Russia. I know young male tigers in India also face many problems, but these often are a result of no room to disperse, not ever present extortionists, deep snow, long distances and empty forests. If they can stay out of trouble for some time, they stand a chance. Not so in Russia. I think. Quote: It appears that some feel that the Royal Bengal Tiger is THE PURE TIGER...the BIGGEST tiger. The most agile tiger. He is plain old Panthera tigris you know...or sometimes P. tigris tigris to show again, its purity. No inferior geographical subspecies suffix-attachment to its scientific name... Others it seems feel that while there are subspecies of tigers, they are all big striped cats that show some geographically based genetic differentiation. Each subspecies has evolved with their habitat at least partially influencing their morphology. Sumatran tigers are said to be the smallest subspecies. What influences an animals size? Habitat? Territorial range? Prey availability? Prey size? Food intake? Sumatra is an island. Sumatran tigers try to eek out a living in somewhat densely populated (by humans) areas. Fewer individuals probably reach adulthood. This would affect the any data obtained. Only in captivity could we truly see that even a well fed healthy adult male Sumatran tiger will not be a "freak specimen" or "monster" tiger. So there are some differences between the subspecies. If you "buy" Bregmann's rule, and I kinda do..... Amur tigers "should" be the largest tigers, but environmental factors seem to have effected their recorded sizes. Maybe we should believe the dismissed old hunting stories, because in captivity we see that well fed healthy adult male Amur tigers are generally the largest tigers, and perhaps do deserve the description of "freak" or "monster". I might as well join the "agility debate." All things being equal... the less bulky cat would be more agile. Carry on.....
Peter, your post makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps the big cats and brown bears have managed to evolve and adapt so as to co-exist with each other. There is no doubt in my mind that more bears are killed by tigers than tigers by bears. The tiger is a pure predator in every sense of the word. He is a stealthy assassin and would rarely misjudge his prey. At a kill site, I doubt that a brown bear would challenge a tiger unless he has a considerable weight advantage, unless he is young and inexperianced or perhaps straight out of his winter's sleep. But, even where the bear is a healthy mature male with distinct weight advantage, I now know that this is not a sure win for him ( as I once believed ).
The brown bear has, in the distant past, lived among lions, tigers, and other big cats. In Pleistocene North America, there were numerous big cats for the grizzly to deal with. Well, perhaps I have strayed off topic here. But, I agree that besides his awesome strength, the tiger needs the advantage of quick reflexes, agility, and lethal weapons to stand a chance against the bears weight, strength, and stamina. (12-02-2014, 02:36 PM)'Amnon242' Wrote:(11-25-2014, 05:24 AM)'Pckts' Wrote: muscle creates agility and power, not decreases it. What do you consider Agility? The highest verticles in the world belong to Basketball and Football players. The fastest sprinters in the world are 100-200yd dash olympians who are all extremely powerful, especially in their lower portion. There are many power lifters who are unbelievably agile, and we are talking about a 500+ lb animal, not a 140lb human being. We are also comparing tigers to other tigers, not weight lifters to acrobats. So the point you're trying to make doesn't work here. Since siberians and bengals are very similar in weight we must compare them. (Apples to Apples) A jaguar is much heavier than a leopard, at the same weight, who knows which will be more agile. Cougars and Leopards are similar in weight, its impossible to say who is more "agile", same goes for human beings. If you want to compare a Powerlifter to somebody, do it to a Defensive Lineman, somebody of equal weight. @peter In regards to this statement "Amur tigers no doubt have to work harder for their money and they also face more risks more often. This is apart from deep snow for many months of the year, severe cold, crop failures resulting in mass migration of prey animals, 60.000 registrated hunters hunting similar animals (as well as tigers) and much less prey animals of an interesting size. " I think now a days they probably have to work harder to find prey since hunting has decimated their habitat and prey. But I don't think they work any harder than any other tiger. All hunts are hard, hence why success rates are nearly the same throughout any habitat. I think hunting a rhino in kaziranga is extremely difficult, a Elephant in corbett, Gaur in Tadoba or a Sambar in Ranth. Every one presents their own challenges. The massive elephant grass and marsh lands, the dense jungle, the deep snow, the sparse cover etc. I think all are challenging in their own way.
A couple of last things to add to trying to compare a leopard to a puma or jaguar.
While comparing Siberian to Bengal, they are morphologically identical. (or atleast extremely close) And proportionally they are the same. While comparing a Cougar to a Leopard lets say. Cougars have longer and thinner limbs with more powerful hind quarters, smaller skulls and fore limbs, less muscle in their shoulders. While Leopards are notoriously muscle bound in their shoulders, neck and forelimbs with larger skulls. Why is that? Well, you would have to assume its becasue a puma needs to jump higher (which it does) to bound through deep snow, compared to a leopard which needs to be powerful enough to drag carcasses twice as heavy as itself straight up a tree which it does. But its impossible to try and say one is more agile than the other, both do amazing feats that are extremely agily and unbelievable to see. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |