WildFact
›
Premier Section
›
Edge of Extinction
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)
|
ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION - B - THE LION (Panthera leo)
|
is the prime reason of the diminishing numbers the poisoning from the villagers and the poachers?
I see there is quite high infanticide in pride takeovers but that has happened for centuries, right? so the declining numbers is an other human crime against the wild life, right?  (01-06-2016, 07:45 PM)sanjay Wrote: We do not have any real figure, But I think approx 30,000 lions left I think its more in the range of 20000 to 23000, including the ones in the national parks and in the wilderness of Africa (except Gir). That is according to Craig Packer in early 2015 so the statistics are not recently updated.
2013 there were 32000 lions
2015 there were 23000 lions 9000 lost in two years? it can't be the poachers or infanticide between the lions, probably villagers is the No 1 threat or the environmental conditions are not favorable to lions anymore or diseases??, so in 2-3 years there will be 10000 lions only left??. awful (01-07-2016, 01:19 AM)LionKiss Wrote: 2013 there were 32000 lions Not necessarily, the rate of killing lions could increase by 1000 each year, not to mention the amount of Lion-born HPV and HIV viruses occuring as a result of HPV and HIV-infected humans illegally crossing the borders between Southern African countries such as Mozambique and South Africa (most notably Kruger National Park). "Lion-farms," trophy killings, diseases I mentioned plus new strains of canine distemper in Kenya and Namibia, deadly territorial fights, tribal customs (Masai killing prime lion males), herbivore assault on lions, poachers, and mines scattered around Angola and the northern borders of Namibia kill lions as well as other animals. My idea is to relocate some lions off to the Barbary Coast, or maybe even lush desert areas (oasises?) with plenty of prey in both regions. They can survive there and possibly grow larger manes due to even more open territory. 
https://www.facebook.com/Endangeredcatsp...fref=photo
 *This image is copyright of its original author
@
I believe that some attempts have been made to involve the Masai in the fauna management. But I don't really know if this is a success. I have seen a report about that and I have believed in the success of the initiative, but now I don't know. 
@
Wounding, mortality and mane morphology in African lions, Panthera leo by Peyton M. West , Holly MacCormick, Grant Hopcraft, Karyl Whitman, Marna Ericson, Maria Hordinsky, and Craig Packer.
Abstract: A protective role for the lion's mane has long been assumed but this assumption has never been tested. We compared patterns of injury, mane development and adult mane morphology in a population of African lions and found no compelling evidence that the mane conferred effective protection against wounding. The mane area was not a specific target of attacks, and injuries to the mane area were not associated with higher mortality than other injuries. Regions of the mane that were most frequently attacked did not show earlier onset of mane growth in subadult males or longer/darker mane hair in adult males. Adult males appeared to be wounded less frequently on the mane area than predicted by surface area, but it is unclear whether this trend was only caused by observer bias from decreased visibility. We conclude that, although the mane may have conferred protection during the early evolution of the trait, protection appears to be secondary to the strong sexually selected advantages of the mane as a condition-dependent ornament. Read it yourself and share your thoughts. 
Below is lion population estimation in different country of Africa by IFAW, IUCN and Duke University in year 2015
 *This image is copyright of its original author But realistically, we have to accept a very sad fact. For one of the most iconic species on this planet, we actually have no idea of how many lions continue to exist in Africa. That is because nobody has funded scientifically valid lion counts. But let’s have a look at the map above and the numbers quoted. See all those brown areas where lions are supposed to occur? Let’s just look at some of them. 1. It would appear that Angola is stuffed with lions. At least ¾ of that country is colored in brown. How many lions occur in Angola? Nobody knows, and nobody has counted even one in the last ten years. It is likely that there are hardly any. 2. Mozambique similarly seems to be stuffed with lions. Look at all that brown color on the map of Mozambique! The graphic says that Mozambique has 678 lions. That number is likely to be inflated according to recent information. And guess what? Most of those brown areas have not one lion. 3. Moving up the map, lions are still supposed to exist in vast areas of southern Somalia. Forget it. That is a war zone. 4. And then there is a huge brown area suggesting that lions occur across considerable areas in South Sudan, northern Democratic Republic of Congo, Chad, and the Central African Republic. No chance. So now let’s move on to the numbers of lions suggested by this "info-graphic" in various other areas. 1. Zambia is supposed to have 2,349 lions. Wow! Where did that number come from? Actually, based on more recent numbers published by researchers and safari operators, it could be estimated that Zambia has perhaps 400 – 500 lions. Most of those occur in the large nationally protected areas like Kafue and the Luangwas. The misinformation about the numbers of lions remaining in Zambia has led the Minister of Tourism and Arts to announce a reversal of a ban on trophy hunting announced in 2013. Now lions can be hunted again… without any independently verifiable count of lion numbers in that country. 2. Zimbabwe is supposed to have 1,362 lions. Wow! Where did that number come from? A recent survey of the huge Gonorezhou park in the south indicated that only 33 lions remain. No dedicated and scientific counts have been undertaken in Hwange, but these days estimates from old numbers range between 83-400 resident lions. The Mid-Zambezi area is supposed to contain large numbers of lions but has never been scientifically surveyed. The Bubye fenced lion trophy hunting area is supposed to contain 200 lions. We have no idea of how many lions remain in that country. 3. Kenya is shown to contain 2,515 lions. Based on what information? Despite probably more lion researchers per square kilometre in Kenya than in any other African country, we still have no verifiable information about Kenya’s lion population. In 2012 the Kenya Wildlife Service said there were 1,700 lions in Kenya. Based on no real surveys. So where does the 2,515 number come from? 4. Botswana is supposed to contain 3,063 lions? Based on what information? The last scientific lion surveys in the north of Botswana were conducted in 2001. I should know, as I participated. Botswana does contain a very large number of lions, but 3,063 of them is a nonsense. 5. South Africa is supposed to contain 3,284 wild lions? Now where would all those be? Kruger might contain about 1,200 lions and then we start to struggle to find more. Yes, there are many fenced reserves that contain introduced lions, and there are many private reserves that contain lions, but all of those are heavily managed and placed there to attract tourists. The entire concept of a truly wild lion escapes definition in South Africa. 6. Ethiopia is supposed to contain 1,239 lions? And where does that number come from? I know of no verifiable lion population count EVER undertaken across Ethiopia. The Ethiopian wildlife authorities are very concerned about their lion population numbers. Perhaps a more realistic number of lions could be arrived at by at the very least halving that number? In conclusion, these sorts of maps and numbers do lions no service. What we need is no further extrapolations but a much more realistic number. And that will need some actual counts. Those will be expensive and time intensive, but there is no other option if intelligent ways forward are to be truly engaged to conserve this iconic species. Original source: http://www.lionaid.org/news/2016/02/how-...africa.htm  (01-15-2016, 01:30 AM)tigerluver Wrote: Wounding, mortality and mane morphology in African lions, Panthera leo by Peyton M. West , Holly MacCormick, Grant Hopcraft, Karyl Whitman, Marna Ericson, Maria Hordinsky, and Craig Packer. First thought is this........... Now I know where saving the "damsel in distress" comes from. Notice that if only 1 males is present they will not take action against a dummy unless a female is present. Only males who outnumbered the dummys would attack the dummy and the dummy had to be sheepskin or maneless. Also interesting to note was page 617 The seriousness of fighting is solely dictated by what the lion has to loose or who the lion is fighting. When infighting a coalition member for a female in heat, the fights are relatively mellow, slaps to the face and bites on the hind quarters but when fighting an outsider the fights are much more serious and the fighters usually attempt to incapacitate the opponent and "fights often end in a quick death for a rival" Also interesting that these same rivals if they see each other with nothing to protect... (female or pride) they will usually avoid any violence. pg 617 Another interesting note was that darker hair were stronger than light but longer were weaker so really a short hair, dark maned male would be the most physically impressive mane. But it also makes sense that a dark hair would be healthy and obviously strong where a long hair would begin to become weak as it grew. Another note was mortality rate from forehead wounds, they said the study had to few individuals to come to a conclusion but they did see a higher mortality rate from forehead wounds compared to neck, shoulder and chest so it would serve the lion best if the forehead developed its mane more so but oddly enough the forehead mane is the shortest and lightest and as young males begin adult hood the mane starts to darken in the areas mentioned not the forehead which kind of slaps darwins rule in the face a bit. pg 618 In conclusion "Regardless of the lion's manes original function, protective benefits are not sufficient to explain the maintenance of the trait; rather, the key benefit of the mane appears to derive from its function as a signal of male condition." My thoughts are the mane is obviously a bit of protection, Hair on the head is a bit of protection over a bald head but you are still going to get cut if you bash your head on a corner. Also, lions coat seem shorter than any other panthera, almost like its their bare skin compared to tigers for instance which seem to have a thicker fur throughout their body so this is may contribute to males being able to sustain mane's since maybe if they had thicker fur the mane would take too much of a toll in the hot months, but the reverse side is that when lions live in the cold, they develop thicker fur and larger manes so who knows about that hypothesis. All and all, the mane is first and foremost: A health gauge for other lions, the bi product of this gauge is protection and warmth. Let me know what any of you think?
In my opinion, a darker-maned lion doesn't always mean enhanced strength or fighting ability, and protection-wise? Only slightly more, as pckts stated (a tiger can still penetrate the mane VERY easily with its jaws.) I've known lions with bright manes/or young lions (Notch, for example) easily match and surpass older and darker-maned individuals in terms of physical force production.
Though, a darker-maned lion is a slightly better indicator of long pride/territory stability or simply more testosterone. However, there are also bright-maned lions with higher testosterone levels than the dark-maned ones. It's the same with tigers with larger ruffs and tigers without ruffs. About the fur, I think lions are quite equal with desert-thriving leopards in terms of the amount of fur covering their bodies. Tigers, jaguars, and forested leopards have the most fur since the forest contains many sharp thorns and leaves for penetrating skin. What I am trying to say is that the individual animal within its own species is a better measurement of physicality and toughness rather than the apparent "dominant" traits developed within a species (i.e., larger/darker mane, bigger mane).
There are always exceptions, but usually the dark maned lion is the most dominate among its coalition members or rivals but of course, there is no such thing as 100% rule.
But the dummy test did show that lions had the most hesitation to attack darker maned males and females were most attracted to dark maned males, also those same dark maned males generated more testosterone than their lighter maned peers. They also generated more body heat and thus would need to be in better physical condition to maintain a dark mane. But all and all, its not the mane that makes the lion, whether it has one or not, the lion is and always will be, a lion, beautiful and powerful! |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |