WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - A - THE TIGER (Panthera tigris)
|
 Quote:Now that we know corbett has a large amount of elephants same with kaziranga, but kaziranga also has rhino, gaur and water buffalo. So all may contribute to the exceptional mass of the Kaziranga tiger, but the other thing that I really think makes a large difference is the terrain. Kaziranga has huge grass, wet plains and rough terrain that will all contribut to a larger cat that needs more power to take down this large prey all the while doing in a terrain that is extremely taxing on their body. Moving 250kg plus through high glass and 2' depth of water is going to take a lot of power. Like watching that massive kaziranga tiger run through the marsh to capture that cattle. You could just see the amount of power needed to move that fast, same with the tigress charging the FD on elephant grass through the tall grass. Both quite impressive displays of power. I agree completely, from my personal observation. I think Kaziranga is almost close to being a tiger heaven because of the terrain alone. Tall Grass, Plenty of prey and large number of water bodies is the reason why these Kaziranga males flourish in the rich habitat.  *This image is copyright of its original author Tall grass all around  *This image is copyright of its original author look at the background, excellent ambush opportunity for tigers to take advantage of and they do it efficiently.  *This image is copyright of its original author Dense jungle in the background  *This image is copyright of its original author the amount of damage these tigers can inflict behind the tall grass, one can only imagine.. Also, I think the Myth of Kaziranga having Gaur is just a myth because so far I haven't seen any and i looked at the numbers from 2002 and on-wards (Gaur population was supposedly 30 and I think they are probably extinct Locally)
here's the extract, I found it.
there are demonstrably very few Gaur in Kaziranga (Karanth and Nicholls 2000). Recent population trends appear to have been stable in well protected areas. The following densities have been estimated: Bhadra Tiger Reserve, 1.48 +/- 0.63 (SE) per km² (Jathanna et al. 2003); Pench (Madhya Pradesh) dry deciduous forest, 0.7 animals per km² (Karanth and Nichols 2000); Nagarahole moist deciduous forest, 9.6 animals per km², making it the second-most abundant ungulate there (Karanth and Sunquist 1992); Bandipur dry deciduous forest, 7.0 animals per km² (Karanth and Nichols 2000); Tadoba-Andhari dry deciduous forest, 1.8 animals per km² (Karanth and Kumar 2005); Melghat dry deciduous forest, 1.0 animals per km² (Karanth and Kumar 2005); Pench (Maharashtra) dry deciduous forest, 0.8 animals per km² (Karanth and Kumar 2005). No densities could be estimated, despite the use of suitable survey methodology, at Kanha or Namdapha, implying relatively low populations, and none was found during such surveys at Kaziranga or Ranthambore (Karanth and Nichols 2000); only small numbers persist in Kaziranga (N.S. Kumar pers. comm. 2008). The Bhadra density is low, reflecting poaching (using snares, dogs and shotguns) and livestock grazing. However, the Gaur population there is now steadily increasing with successful conservation interventions (K.U. Karanth and N.S. Kumar unpublished data). A study at Nagarahole National Park compared the fauna of an area which was only moderately hunted with a heavily hunted site: this found respective densities of six and two Gaurs per km² (Madhusudan and Karanth 2002). Dr.Ullas Karanth and Nichols in 2000 found no trace of Gaur in Kaziranga so it's safe to say that they are locally extinct. source : http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/2891/0 
Maybe it is the rhino that really makes the difference, tigers do like to prey on sub adult and even adult rhinos quite often. Probably the water buffalo as well. Both are super heavy and protein dense animals that could definitely contribute to their massive size even if their are not many gaur in kaziranga.
 Vinod\ dateline='\'1415512240' Wrote:peter\ dateline='\'1415448877' Wrote: THE RELATION BETWEEN TIGER SIZE AND HERBIVORE SIZE a - TIGERS IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH INDIA Agreed on most points made, but not on the alleged difference in size between south and central India tigers. The measurements I have suggest there were distinct differences between south-east and south-west India a century ago. If we include the Deccan as part of south India, we could distinguish between three regions. A century ago, male tigers exceeding 9.0 straight and 400 pounds were uncommon in south-east India and the Deccan, but not in the Western Ghats. Tigers in central India were a bit longer and heavier, but not by much. Central India probably had more exceptional animals. We know, because those who wrote books preferred to hunt in central India. Most of them reported about exceptional tigers. Same for Dunbar Brander. In spite of the six very large males he shot or saw shot, his average was just about 9.3 for 42 males, meaning most probably were just below that mark. Same for weight. Most males probably didn't reach 420 pounds. There are not that many reports on the size of tigers in south India, because it wasn't as accessible as central India. Those who hunted in the south, like in central India, often reported on large animals. Although they were there, tigers in south India were a bit shorter and not as heavy. In some regions, tigers exceeding 9 feet straight were considered large. The main reasons central India had more large animals were numbers and, as Tigerluver suggested, cattle. Many males of 500 pounds and over were confirmed cattle killers and well past their prime. Some of these, when the supply was cut short, moved to humans. Typical game killers were very similar to game killers in other parts of India. b - TIGERS IN NORTH INDIA Tigers in north India often were a bit longer and heavier than those in central and south India. After reading all recent articles on tiger evolution, I concluded it is possible India could have had two waves of tigers. The first wave settled in central and southern India, whereas the second wave entered India a few thousand years later just south of the Himalayas. The second wave tigers could have been a bit larger. When they entered India, the melting ice and better conditions resulted in more prey animals, especially in regions close to mountains. Is the larger size of tigers in north India confirmed in today's measurements and weights? Yes. Do tigers in north India still enjoy somewhat better conditions? Again affirmative. c - TIGER SIZE AND PREY As for size and reasons. You have a point in that some well-stocked regions produce tigers of moderate size, whereas others have large animals only. There is no easy explanation. It could have been a result of large prey animals all year round, it could have been a result of competition in smallish reserves with zero possibilities for dispersal, it could have been water, it could have been Bergmann's rule and it could have been a combination of factors. For what it's worth. Large male tigers in north-east India hunt large herbivores all year round. Every large kill enables a large male tiger to use his energy for something else. Maybe they use it to route competitors and mate more often than smaller males. If so, chances are the region will produce more large tigers in the end. This process continues until the limit has been reached. The limit could be the ability to hunt. Male tigers, unlike male brown bears, are true carnivores. At 500 pounds and over, chances are they wouldn't hunt deer for the simple reason it, energywise, doesn't pay. A wild buffalo or an immature elephant or rhino, however, would. If the supply is ok all year round, chances are male tigers will develop into specialists. This will enable them to continue the arms race, which will result in larger tigers. Large prey animals are, I think, the reason Assam tigers are and remain large. But they were enabled to get there because of the supply, so it works both ways. d - THE DISADVANTAGE OF LARGE SIZE IN HUNTERS Size also can work against you. Kamsjatka male brown bears are very large animals. They could use their energy to dig up roots, but that, at their size, wouldn't do. They need protein. Apart from salmon, there isn't much of it in Kamsjatka. Not when the salmon are gone. This means they have no option but to hunt their own kind. Not cubs, but immatures of up to, say, four years or so. And an adult female every now and then. And guess what. One could say the limit has been reached in Kamsjatka. When you start hunting and eating your own kind, the end of the line is close. e - BERGMANN'S RULE Apart from all that, there is Bergmann's rule. Skull and body length confirm tigers, as Kitcherner said, are a little larger in the north-east of Asia. The reason is it is colder in north-east Asia. A large body helps to conserve heat and energy. A long body, however, has to be fed as well. As there are no very large herbivores in north-east Asia anymore, tigers hunt deer and wild pigs. As these, as a result of the conditions, have to walk from pasture to pasture, tigers do nordic long distance walking as well. Amur tigers have large territories because they have to. When there is a crop failure, which often happens in the north, Amur tigers, like all other animals, can't afford to go for deer and porc anymore. But bears are plentiful nearly everywhere, even in bad years. f - TIGERS AND BEARS IN RUSSIA The problem with bears is they know how to fight. They are very different from the very large Assam herbivores, that is. Tigers responded by hunting smaller bears, like immatures and females. They also have to be able to defend their kills from male bears, meaning they have to stand a chance in a fight with a heavier cleptocrate. According to Krechmar, they are just about able to to that. The number of male tigers displaced by male bears is very limited. The combined result of snow, regular crop failures, nordic long distance walking and hunting bears is interesting. At about similar body length, Amur tigers seem more athletic than Assam tigers. Male Assam tigers are built like tanks, but male Amur tigers seldom exceed 210 kg. Assuming male Amur tigers fight dangerous opponents more often than male Assam tigers (other tigers as well as bears and wild pigs) and have just about what it needed to survive, the conclusion is a fighter in the world of big cats isn't built like a tank. He is long and tall, has a large skull, extra-large canines and large fore-arms, but he lacks the deep chest and the bulky rump often regarded as typical for a good critter. It seems, therefore, that mass was offered for agility and some kind of endurance. I doubt if Amur tigers would have reached the size many think they reached a century ago. Exceptional animals no doubt were there in the days of plenty, but the conditions in north-east Asia just do not allow for tigers built like tanks. Like real tiger tanks in World War Two, chances are they would get bogged down in the mud and snow. Besides, even at 500 pounds they would still need a hundred more to get to a par with an average male brown bear. The problem is you are no longer a hunter at that weight. In the conditions in Russia, you need power, but agility, speed and endurance seem as important. g - CONDITIONS, DEMANDS AND RESULT Maybe the features mentioned only are effective against bears and not in fights with other tigers or lions. I heard rumours on the alleged aggression of Indian tigers from many trainers, but in the end they all agreed an average male Amur tiger has an initial advantage. The reason is they, even at a slightly larger size, are as agile and fast as other big cats. In the end, the size of a big cat depends on the conditions foremost. Genetics are important, but a typical hunter needs to adapt all the time as fast as he can. If he doesn't, chances are he will not make it. h - WATER I read nice stories about swamps, big cats and immense muscles in order to move and hunt in a way enabling a decent income. While it is true Okavango lions and Assam tigers seem extra large and muscular, Sunderban tigers are the smallest today. The Vietnamese swamp tigers in Cochin-China a century ago also were smaller than tigers in other parts of Indochina. Sumatra also has swampy regions, but the tigers making a living over there are not as large as those in other parts of Sumatra. The conclusion is water in itself apparently isn't a drive behind extra size in lions and tigers. Maybe swimmers are a bit more robust at times, but they are not larger. Other factors seem more important. i - EVOLUTION IN TIGERS AND BEARS The factor behind size could be similar to the one in bears. Sexual drive could be the engine in both animals. Large enables more access to females, which would result in larger animals in the end. Tigers and bears, of course, are different in that one is a typical hunter, whereas the other is not. The non-hunter, sizewise, could perhaps develop a bit more if he has a good nose and hunters he can rob, but a typical hunter can't. Unless he, as in Assam, has a year-round supply of large herbivores he's able to overcome with size foremost. Even then, however, athleticism and speed are needed to overcome resistance. Male bears hunting large animals are not nearly as competent as tigers and the major reasons, I think, are body construction and size. Perhaps 600 pounds is the limit, but chances are it is closer to 500. But why then are there no 500-pound male bears hunting herbivores all the time? Because they can't compete with a big cat of similar size. They don't have the weapons, the speed and the skill needed. Not enough to do it all the time everywhere. Their body evolved for robustness, probably in order to compete with other bears. Robustness and size result in digging and cleptocracy, but it wouldn't enable hunting. Even if they get experienced in hunting, they wouldn't compare to a real pro. So genetics it is, in the end? I would go for yes. At some stage, mammals developed into what they are today. It comes down to the basic design, so it seems. There always are exceptions. Polar bears are brown bears who adapted to new conditions. They are the only true carnivore in their family and the reason is plenty of blubber from animals unable to move fast on the ice. In spite of their size, however, I wouldn't say they compare to true hunters like big cats. In the end, you are what you are and that will never change. The real question is why it started and moved in the way it did. The answer to that one is that the essentials regarding (the origins of) species are in the genes. You can change a lot, but not that. 
Don't debate here. I have move the debate part of this thread in debate section.
Request to members, please do not debate at any issue here, If you have to say something about any post, Please create appropriate thread in debate section  (11-03-2014, 08:11 AM)peter Wrote: CAPTIVE MALE AMUR TIGER DVUR KRALOVY I saw him...this tiger is called Jupiter and he is from ZOO Dvur Kralove in Czech. In the zoo there is a table which says that Jupiter was 196 kg when weighted. Jupiter is tall, but lean. There is another male amur in that zoo, tiger called Skip. Skip is very old, he was 17 when i saw him (one year ago, Jupiter was 7), but still much, much bigger than Jupiter. Tall as Jupiter buch much more robust...a bear-like creature. Interesting thing is that a son of Skip was 140 kg when he was 1 year old. (11-14-2014, 12:16 AM)'sanjay' Wrote: Don't debate here. I have move the debate part of this thread in debate section. Although it wasn't intended, there was a small debate after my previous post. PC, who responded to my post, had a point in that my conclusion regarding Assam and Amur tigers is close to an opinion. The debate that followed was moved to the debate section. The reason is this thread is about information. Members can respond to posts, but extensive debates are not intended. (11-14-2014, 11:58 AM)'Amnon242' Wrote:(11-03-2014, 08:11 AM)'peter' Wrote: CAPTIVE MALE AMUR TIGER DVUR KRALOVY Below are three photographs of three wild male Amur tigers and one captive male. Which one is close to Skip? Did you see any differences between Skip and the ones below in build? 1 - Male tiger 'Murzik'. He seems about average in body weight and length (180-200 kg.), but this impression could be a result of his large skull.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author 2 - Male tiger T-16. He was trapped, but escaped when they came to dart him. He seems larger than average, but the heaviest they captured so far was 'Luke', who progressed from 150 to 212 kg. in a few years only. For now, we assume he probably was over 200 kg.  *This image is copyright of its original author 3 - The largest shot by Jankowski in Manchuria in 1943. He was 11.6 'over curves' and estimated at about 300 kg. (660 pounds or thereabout) after eating a large male bear. They found his feet and skull nearby. In his letters to V. Mazak, Jankowski more than once wrote he was way larger than all other tigers they had seen or shot.  *This image is copyright of its original author 4 - The Duisburg Zoo male Amur tiger again. He was 320 cm. in a straight line and 110 cm. at the shoulder standing and estimated at 280-300 kg. in his prime.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Peter: I´d choose T 16.
When I saw Jupiter and Skip next to each other I said "wow, if Jupiter is around 200 kg, then Skip (17yo) is at least 250 kg". http://www.zoodvurkralove.cz/cs/novinky/...u-u-tygru/ In this article (well, in czech) the zoo says, that Clyde (son of Skip) was 140 kg in one year. Btw when you see the photos, the male is not Skip, but Jupiter.
CAPTIVE AND WILD AMUR TIGERS
Amnon posted in the thread about Amur and Assam tigers in the debate section. He said wild tigers in both regions could be about similar, but captive Amur tigers usually are larger than captive Indian tigers. I agree. The question is why captive Amur tigers are larger than all other captive big cats. Another question is why wild Amur tigers do not reach that size. The last question is why wild tigers are larger than captive tigers in India. In this post, a few ideas. A - WHY WILD AMUR TIGERS ARE NOT AS LARGE AS THEIR CAPTIVE RELATIVES Amur tigers face tougher conditions than tigers living in other regions. They have to walk in snow for six months of the year. Prey densities are lower and prey animals also are smaller. The cold is pronounced for long periods of time. Furthermore, they face more competition. Amur tigers have to compete with other tigers, humans (omnivores), wild pigs (omnivores) and bears (omnivores) and all have to work harder to get the food they need. In fights between tigers, size is important. In fights with wild boars and bears, it seems to be a bit different. Size of course helps, but my guess is a combination of strength, endurance, agility and coordination could be a crucial. A competitive wild tiger, weightwise, just can't afford to get to his potential because it would have a negative effect in the departments discussed. He needs a large body to stay warm, long legs to walk, large paws to move in the snow and athleticism to hunt and engage competitors of similar or larger size. The information I have suggests most male tigers have about 1 kg. per square cm. in length. Some, like 'Luke' (212 kg.) and 'Banzai' (207 kg.), are short and stocky, but the norm is long and not over 210-215 kg. in good periods and not below 160-170 kg. in bad times. I think 190 kg. would be a good average. About similar to Kruger lions. A captive male Amur tiger, on the other hand, isn't tested. There's no need for limitations of any sort. In captivity, he could get to his potential. I saw small adult males just over 150 kg. and a few close to double that weight. My guess would be around 220 kg. or thereabout for most. Perhaps a trifle below that. And captive tigers don't have to go through violent changes in weight. B - WHY WILD AMUR TIGERS COULD HAVE BEEN A BIT LARGER A CENTURY AGO Manchuria probably didn't have a lot of large animals 150 years ago as well. That was in the days of hunters writing about exceptional animals. So if it wasn't prey animals, then what was the reason tigers were, possibly, a bit larger a century ago? One reason is more tigers would have resulted in more competition. This would have resulted in a larger size, as large tigers win more fights and have more access to females. There is another reason. More tigers also would have resulted in more kills and more kills would have attracted more bears. Male bears, black or brown, often are large animals of 200 kg. and well over. If a big cat is displaced by male bears on a regular basis, he needs to hunt more often to get the same amount of meat. This means loss of energy and, in some cases, starvation. Some tigers faced with displacement on a regular basis would not be willing to engage a bear, whereas others would. Of those willing to engage a male bear, some will be killed and some will kill their opponent. Those able to win a fight would probably try it again. If they survive longer than those displaced, chances are they pass on their genes more often. Natural selection as a result of the ability to overcome competition of bears, that is. Although size, in this respect, would be less important than character and athleticism, a tiger would need size to be able to get to the vital parts of a bear while wrestling. He also would need agility and strength. Weight, however, could impede movement and agility. All this, I think, would have resulted in selection for long and tall animals with muscular fore-arms and the means to overcome large muscles in the neck of the bear, meaning large canines. Everything I have on the size of Manchurian tigers a century ago suggests they were very similar to today's Amur tigers. Most large males were tall, very long and muscular. The largest according to Jankowski could have been 250-260 kg. empty or just over. There could have been freak tigers, but not one report on these giants was substantiated. Not as heavy as one would expect, that is. In the days of plenty, chances are there would have been more exceptional animals. They would have affected the average in a similar way as small tigers. My guess is the average was a bit higher, but not to the extent often discussed. In the conditions up north, weight would have been a problem as often as not. The average could have been close to the average of today's captive Amur tigers (220 kg.), but I think it was a bit below that. About similar to the average for Assam a century ago, I think (205-215 kg.). C - WHY WILD INDIAN TIGERS ARE LARGER THAN THEIR CAPTIVE COUNTERPARTS The only country that has captive Indian tigers, as far as I know, is India. I have information on 35 captive males in Indian zoos. The range was 160-210 kg. and the average was about 405 pounds (183,70 kg.). There is not much on wild Indian tigers, but the lightest was 200 kg. exactly. This tiger, from Chitwan, probably wasn't adjusted, but the photographs I saw when he was captured suggest he wasn't even close to gorged. Maybe the captive animals were malnourished and maybe there were not. Maybe small wild males are way below 200 kg. and maybe they are not. For now, I propose to use the information we have and it says there's quite a difference between wild and captive animals in India. Why is that? India has many reserves, but most are not interconnected and there's humans everywhere. Every young male who wants to disperse has to be very lucky to reach a new safe place. There probably are many tigers like 'Broken Tail', who was hit by an express train. Most reserves are well-stocked, meaning tigers do not need to starve. In many reserves, for this reason, tigers are healthy and quite large. A healthy population will produce many cubs. The problem is adolescents and young adults have nowhere to go. The only solution is to find a place in the reserve where you was born. That won't be easy, as those with prosperous farms and cattle don't want you on their turf. The result is conflicts and that's what we see all too often. Infighting is one of the major causes of death in tigers in India. What we see in most parts in India, therefore, is prosperous cities, large individuals, overcrowding, many struggles for territory and many victims. In captive big cats, size often determines the outcome of a fight. If we assume it wouldn't be different in wild big cats, the conclusion has to be most large males will probably outcompete smaller males. If this pattern continues for a long time, we would expect to see larger tigers in the end and we are not disappointed. Tigers, as solitary hunters, have to be adapters by nature. If a tiger can't adapt to the local conditions, he will perish. In captive tigers, this drive is not there. The result is less competitive animals who seem prone to degeneration. Amur tigers are the exception to this general rule, because they need length, endurance, character and athleticism in order to overcome difficult conditions and competition of large omnivores. Weight would be counterproductive. Captive Amur tigers, however, are not impeded and the result is they often get to their potential. The result is long and tall tigers often a bit too heavy. D - OMNIVORES AS COMPETITORS I posted some stories on fights between wild boars and tigers. Tigers win most fights, but they are far from invincible. I didn't post a lot on bears and tigers in Russia yet, but the info I have suggests it also is a close call in most cases. Tigers win most fights, but they struggle against large males. Brown bears win on points, most Russian authorities think. I think it could be a bit closer than that, but chances are large male bears often go unchallenged. They are just too big for an average male tiger. Could have been a bit different in the days of plenty, but exceptional tigers have not yet been captured today. Why that is, is anybody's guess. Below are a few pictures of bears. No wild boars, as they featured some posts ago. The first three are Amur brown bears. The last one is a Himalyan black bear. Male Amur brown bears average about 260-270 kg. Male Himalayan black bears are much smaller, but you never know with bears. Some males are as heavy and robust as a big male Amur tiger. Bears, to quote a poster from AVA, are no joke. I'm sure we all agree: 4.1 - This is what some hunters really saw themselves (first posted by Warsaw on AVA):  *This image is copyright of its original author 4.2 - Just taking a walk (WCS):  *This image is copyright of its original author 4.3 - A captive Amur brown bear from the San Diego Zoo, if I remember correctly. First posted by a member of AVA who opened his own store some years ago (Grahh):  *This image is copyright of its original author 4.4 - Male Himalayan black bear shot by one of the Jankowski's. This photograph has no angles and the bear is as large as they come:  *This image is copyright of its original author
Can anyone here suggest any books which might give insight into the tiger-bear relationship in Siberia?
I did a few posts on bears and tigers in Russia already in this thread. I intend to do a few more in the near future. I'll add the sources I will use.
Regarding sources. There's, I think, not one that clearly sticks out. Some Russian biologists offered good information in their books, whereas others are all but silent on the subject. It is about those who had first-hand experience, as their reports should be reliable. Sysoev is one and so is Sludskij, but there are more. I also read a few books and articles of people I would describe as qualified, but most of them went for overviews. There one more thing to consider. Bears and tigers is a popular topic in forums. In general, one could say there are bear-posters and tiger-posters. Some posters are well-informed, whereas others are not. After participating for some time, I concluded nearly all have the tendency to select some sources and not others. My impression is it isn't much different in biologists. Not one modern article or book published by a biologist is incorrect regarding bears and tigers, but that doesn't mean the topic was extensively covered. I could give you three reliable incidents with sources and pictures, but there could be 300 more I'm not talking about. There are many reasons. Maybe these incidents were not published in 'peer-reviewed' documents, maybe they met with scepticism and maybe they didn't serve my purpose. In this respect, bears and tigers could compare to lions, tigers, fights and all the rest of it. It's these topics that can result in animosity and destruction. On AVA, there is a thread in the old Premier League on bears and tigers. It's a good one, I think. The forum was destroyed by a hacker over a year ago, but the forum is still there for some reason. Anyone can visit the site and read the posts. I would advice to read and copy as much as you can before it is all gone.
I did read a book titled: ~~Notes of an East Siberian Hunter by A.A. Cherkassov - 1865. I was surprised that the tiger is hardly mentioned at all throughout the book. I can only assume that tigers were rare even in those days in the areas where Cherkassov hunted. However, I did enjoy the book.
That is one huge Asiatic black bear pictured! Peter says: In this respect, bears and tigers could compare to lions, tigers, fights and all the rest of it. It's these topics that can result in animosity and destruction. I very strongly agree; wildfact is on the right track, and I wouldn't wish to push this site off track. What I am interested in is "the natural order of things" in the Siberian taiga in reference to the brown bear and the tiger. Such questions as "the size, sex, and age range of brown bears hunted by tigers" and "what really happens when a mature male brown bear challenges a tiger over a carcass"? The wolverine has been known to chase a mature grizzly from a kill, in both North America and in Eurasia. Even the determined cougar has been known to defend a carcass from a grizzly on occasion. Sometimes the truth hurts, but I am seeking the truth. 
Orang National Park, Assam, India
1) This study was published in the year (2008-2009) Orang National Park (92˚16' to 92˚27' E, 26˚29' to 26˚40' N) is located in Darrang and Sonitpur districts of Assam and has an area of 78.80 sq. km. Based on the recent satellite imagery, the wildlife habitat types in Orang can be categorized into the following habitat types :  *This image is copyright of its original author The mighty river Brahmaputra flows through southern boundary of the Park that is crisscrossed by a network of channels connecting the mighty river, particularly during the monsoon. Small tributaries Pachnoi River, Belsiri River and Dhansiri River flow along the boundaries of the Park and ultimately meet the Brahmaputra River. There are twelve wetlands, some of them are already heavily silted and 26 man made water bodies in the Park (Talukdar and Sharma, 1995). As per the estimation carried out in 2006, the park harbours about 68 Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) along with sympatric species like – Hog Deer (Axis porcinus), Wild Pigs (Sus scrofa), Fishing Cat (Felis viverrina), Jungle Cat (Felis chaus) and Leopard Cat (Prionailurus bengalensis).  *This image is copyright of its original author Main Objectives of this Project :
Results of this Project : Sign Survey : Sign survey was carried out on roads and trails in Orang National Park and 150 km of road transect were carried out during November-December 2007. The total tiger signs encountered were 108 and overall tiger sign encounter rate was calculated 7.2/10 km. The result summary is given below:  *This image is copyright of its original author Camera Trapping : There was camera trapping operation in the park from May 25 to June 14, 2008. During the 20 days of camera trapping they used camera traps at 27 trap locations. During the 540 trap-nights there was 20 photographs of seven individual tigers that include two males, four females and one individual of unknown sex was obtained. Other than tiger photographs there was also a large number of photographs of rhino, hog deer, wild boar, porcupine, large Indian civet, small Indian civet, palm civet, fishing cat, jungle cat and leopard cat, and even birds. This is the camera used to capture pictures.  *This image is copyright of its original author Prey Availability: The likely prey species of tiger in Orang National Park are Hog deer, Wild pig, and Cattle. The team ran altogether 10 Elephant Line Transect and 4 Line Transect on foot to estimate the abundance of the prey species density. The transects covered all the different habitats present in the area viz. Tall Grasslands, Short Grasslands and Mixed Deciduous Forest . We walked on each transect between 0600 to 1000 hr and 1600 to 1900 hr. The below figure shows the relative abundance of the common prey species of tiger encountered during transects. Hog Deer and cattle are the most abundant prey species.  *This image is copyright of its original author
Continuation.....
2) Tiger – Human Conflict : Orang can be considered as hotbed for human-tiger conflict as the record proves here. Since 1990, as many as 15 people were killed by tigers around the Orang National Park. This number is considerably high as far as human casualty is concerned. Further, as many as 33 incidences of livestock lifting cases are also recorded around the park since 1993. Such high level of conflict has taken a heavy toll of tiger in the park as the local community has become hostile towards the animal. As a result, 13 incidences of tiger killings by villagers have been recorded in the park. This is a very high price the tigers have paid for a small conservation area like Orang National Park.  *This image is copyright of its original author  *This image is copyright of its original author Community based Human-Tiger Conflict Evaluation : Five fringe villages were surveyed involving the CTCUs (Community Tiger Conservation Units) to found out the past cases of tiger depredation in the area. Preliminary result of the survey is shown in the chart below while we analyze the load of data.  *This image is copyright of its original author |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 5 Guest(s) |