|
Amur Tigers
|
Great information Apollo, it seems that the Amur tiger prey selection is biased toward the adult specimens. Although in second place are the young animals, the problem with this tiger population is that a small animal will not provide too much food and taking in count the very low prey density, they prefer the larger prey possible as they don't know when they will be able to eat again, definitely it is a hard life.
So, the Amur tiger (Av. 190 kg ♂, 120 kg ♀) prefer the adult red deer (Av. 224 kg ♂, 149 kg ♀) and the adult wild boar (Av. 193 kg ♂, 92 kg ♀); the relation predator/prey is between 1/0.5 - 1/2.
Here is an interesting post from Lionlifeme, about a video from the Tv program "Operation Snow Tiger", when is possible to see a composition of pictures from camera traps of the Amur tigers "Banzai" (207 kg) and "Luke" (212 kg, A.K.A. "Luk" or "Liuk"). This is the direct link of the video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p019nn6r
Here is the post of Lionlifeme: Video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p019nn6r Banzai appears at (1:15 - 2:20) amazing size, the face reminds me of Leopard face and the body looks like Madla's. Luke appears at (2:21 till the very end of the video) amazing size and even bigger than Banzai imho. Banzai's pictures and history - http://mysouth.su/2011/05/satellite-beac...re-tigers/ Banzai was previously captured 2 years ago and at that time he weighed 207 kilograms but looks like he's put on massive weight since his last capture, any guesses on what he weighs now? [font]Banzai - Radiocollared male 1 from (1:15 - 2:20) Below[/font]  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author [font]Now Luke (Below)[/font]  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 
Definitely Luke look more bigger than Banzai, I guess Big Males of Amur are bigger than Big Male of Bengals ? Though over all on an average they are equal.
There is a false impression that Amur tigers are larger/heavier than Bengal tigers, however this is not (and has never been) the case.
Like in the topic about the King of tigers (http://wildfact.com/forum/topic-who-is-t...the-tigers ), I have show that in fact BOTH subspecies have about the same size. The differences between them are much less than between the largest lion population and the Bengal tigers. Taking in count old and modern records together, Amur tigers seems slightly longer but Bengals are slightly heavier and have larger chest girths, they seems to have the same shoulder height. In the skull department, Amur tiger skulls are more massive overall but Bengal ones match they length and breath, so the difference is again, too small to take them apart in base of size. So, in my conclusion, both tiger groups are of the same size and represent the pinnacle of tiger evolution in the Holocene, with large males reaching up to 3 meters long and weighing over 250 kg, like a norm. Caspian tigers are also great candidates for an equal place, but as there are too few skulls and even less body measurements and weights, it is impossible to get accurate comparisons, although the few available pictures shows that they were of the same size than the Amur and Bengal tigers. 
I guess Banzai is now 220-230kg, but over 250kg is a stretch by considering the available prey base there.
BTW, is your canine table ready by now? 
For me Banzai appeared more heavier and bulkier than Luke.
But these tigers are not as big as Madla, Madla's weight of 250Kg is the least minimum possible weight for his size. So if Madla was weighed properly he could have been heavier than Sauraha male. Remember these two tigers have their winter coat which enhances the bulky appearance. Anything close to 500lbs would be my guess.
Is a fact that modern Amur tigers are much lighter than older specimens, but these new records suggest that step by step, the northern tigers are recovering they past glory. Conservation of the habitat and the prey base are fundamental to save any tiger population.
The figure of 250 kg do apply to the Amur tigers, although not for the modern ones (for the moment). Old records produced reliable records of up to 254 kg (Slaght et al., 2005). So, it is safe to say that 250 kg was a very reachable figure in the old days. In modern times, a figure of 220 kg seems to be the highest plausible. The Bengal male tiger Madla was in fact, larger than the Sauraha male from Nepal. Madla had larger neck girth and longer canines (sadly no other measurements are known), and although its body mass seems smaller (estimated at 250 kg, adjusted for stomach content), it is very possible that they were of the same body mass (260 kg), or slightly more in the case of Madla.  (04-27-2014, 09:27 AM)'GuateGojira' Wrote: Great information Apollo, it seems that the Amur tiger prey selection is biased toward the adult specimens. Although in second place are the young animals, the problem with this tiger population is that a small animal will not provide too much food and taking in count the very low prey density, they prefer the larger prey possible as they don't know when they will be able to eat again, definitely it is a hard life. It could be they concentrate on adult deer and wild boar in summer, but in winter Amur tigers, according to Yudakov and Nikolaev (1970-1973), target young animals in particular. The reason is snow. The average snow depth in Sichote-Alin is about 38 cm. This means animals tire very quickly when they move. Young animals in particular sometimes perish from exhaustion, whereas others are unable to get away when they are confronted by tigers. Tigers, when they travel through snow, often rest. Same when they hunt. This strategy, a result of conditions and adaptation, pays. Male tigers in particular seldom completely eat the animals they kill, Yudakov and Nikolaev found. In most cases, they eat between 25-50%. They very seldom return to kills as well. Meaning they do well in winter, in spite of the snow. This was the situation in the early seventies of the last century. In the late nineties and at the turn of the century, the situation had changed. There were much more tigers, but hardly tigresses with cubs. The reason was different conditions, humans and much less ungulates to hunt. Tigers starved. After the collapse of the Sovjet-Union, millions lost their jobs when state firms closed down and banks fell over. In Sichote-Alin, many entered the forest in order to eat. They had to. The result was less ungulates and hungry tigers. This is why they entered villages to hunt dogs and why they changed their behaviour towards humans. Different conditions and shortages could also be related to tigers and bears. Yudakov and Nikolaev found only one female black bear and a cub killed by one male tiger. That was it. At the turn of the century, however, some male tigers had turned into specialists, just like in the forties and fifties of the last century and for similar reasons. They hunted bears because they had to. Bears replaced wild boar and deer. Male bears, very probably, acted in a similar way. Some (satellite bears) followed tigresses with cubs and immature tigers and at times hunted and killed them for food. This is what authorities think and I think they could be right. The conclusion I got to after reading Yudakov and Nikolaev is tigers are not much different from us. They like to take things easy when the situation is favourable. They don't mind hunting piglets at all, as long as there are enough. In hard times, they change because they have to. Any tiger going for a bear probably starts at the bottom. When things go well and they get more confidence, they might try immatures and females. But going for adult males doesn't seem likely. Any tiger, specialist or not, who goes for a bear of similar size, black or brown, is taking a chance and they know. My guess is tigers learn to hunt bears when they, in difficult times, are confronted with the results of what bears do for a living. When they had enough, chances are they will engage a bear. The outcome is unpredictable, but there is enough circumstantial proof that tigers who learned how to hunt bears will confront animals of similar size or better at times. But that's another discussion.
I read the recent reports on male tiger 'Banzai' (183 cm. in head and body and 207 kg.) and male tiger 'Luke' (212 kg.). Both, in my opinion (based on photographs), were shortish and stocky. I don't think 'Luke' is the limit for this reason.
Yudakov and Nikolaev followed 3 male tigers and 2 females between 1970-1973. One of the 3 males was an adult transient. A 'pro', who had learned to survive without a territory. He didn't, because he suffered from health problems. At age 9 or 10, he met tiger 'Moguchi' and lost the fight. Twelve days later, he died. Although unfit, he was 192 kg. Just over the average, that is. His opponent, who had a larger pad (12 cm. versus 11,5 cm.), probably was a larger animal ('Moguchi' means mighty). From the traces in the snow, he had no problem to get rid of the professional transient. Yet, he was dwarfed by a tiger described as 'very large'. This tiger had a pad width of 13,5 cm. I don't know if there is a direct relation between pad width, body dimensions and weight, but the information I have on Amur tigers suggests there is. A pad width of 12 cm. is considered large. I wonder about the 13,5 cm. pad width. Maybe Krechmar, asked about his opinion on the size of extra-large wild Amur tigers, will be proved right one day. Here's the page in the great book of Yudakov and Nikolaev:  *This image is copyright of its original author Yudakov and Nikolaev also saw scratch marks on trees. They ranged between 210-290 cm. But this photograph, taken recently, shows some males can get over 290 cm.:  *This image is copyright of its original author We also know some females can grow to a large size:  *This image is copyright of its original author Now just suppose she would meet him:  *This image is copyright of its original author Or him:  *This image is copyright of its original author If conditions improve and the number of tigers rises, Amur tigers could show a similar amount of variation in size as in other regions. The longest Indian tigers, measured in a straight line, range between 10.4-10.8. They are far and few between, but there's no question animals of this length were there. Amur tigers are a bit longer. One would expect some to get to that length or a bit over. My calculation, based on skulls, was 10.10-11.2 as a potential maximum. In weight, there would be little to choose. It would depend on the conditions. For now, India has the best conditions, but that could change. South-east Russia has more potential. The reason is less humans and more uninterrupted forests. The only thing missing is wild boars.  *This image is copyright of its original author 
Guate your average in your chart should be 190kg now, until we find out if these males have gained more weight, then should be higher.
[img]images/smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
You are correct, using all the data available now, the average for males is of 190 kg and the one for females is of 121 kg, with maximum figures of 212 kg and 136 kg respectively.
Guate your weight for tigress Nellie is off by one kg. She was re-weighed in 2003 and weighed 270lbs, 122kg not 121kg. she weighed 165lbs three years before the recent weight of 270lbs. So the tigress weight should go up by 1 kg. [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Following the tradition of the Siberian Tiger Project, in the weight of Nellie, I used the average of the two weights recorded: 265 lb and 270 lb, which is 267.5 lb or c.121 kg, which is the figure in my tables.
If we use only the last weights, many corrections should be made, like for example, using 205 kg instead of 193 kg for the large male Dale. That will be a good point of debate. What do you all think that is more accurate: 1-to use the last weight or 2-to use the average of all weights? [img]images/smilies/huh.gif[/img]
Hmm that is a good question, averages sounds good, the differences tat way are very small still, so I see no problem there.
[img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img] |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 101 Guest(s) |