Tigers are social animals?

[paul cooper]

So tigers are social animals or what?

"b) Influence of sociality on stereotype.
Our study shows that tigers managed in social conditions stereotyped lower than those managed in solitary condition. [81] and [54] also reported that social interaction results in the reduction or absence of pacing. However, this is intriguing, as several species of felids are solitary living with vast territories in the wild [82], and considering the territorial behaviour of tigers, especially of males, in their natural habitats. [68] explained this contradiction citing the composition of a large group of seven individuals by [83], who stated that "the presumed territoriality system of male tigers appears to be less rigid than that, for example, of many antelopes and birds' and "it is possible that territorial behaviour may be modified under certain environmental conditions such as shortage of water or cover"(This is confusing because in 1957 which is [83] the only thing i heard of is powell describing 5 tigers and a tigress sharing a small area.. actually that is obviously a tiger family, there are all coincidences) Further, [68] stated that female in oestrus may travel widely and is sometime followed by several males (How is this has to do with sociality? Tigers will fight for the female no?). Studies across a number of other species have also demonstrated social isolation to be associated with high levels of stereotypic behaviour and chronic stress [84–87]. On the other hand, [88] state that felid species, which are generally solitary in the wild, are in pairs or trios in zoos due to constraints of space and as a result, although arguably a source of social enrichment, can also be a source of chronic stress [3] and can affect reproduction too [89–90]. However, the present study shows that keeping the tigers in sociality might positively influence their welfare in captivity."
@peter?

Now the researchers are dumb for quoting and saying that about the territoriality system of the tiger, because they took it out of context..
"The territories of some mammals are so large that they cannot be surveyed readily by the owner, as Leyhausen has pointed out, and this seems to be the particularly true in the case of the tiger. Strangers cannot, therefore, be prevented from entering the area, because a defense of all boundaries is impossible except by such indirect means as marking with scent. As a result, the presumed territorial system of male tigers.." The deer and the tiger
Schaller goes about explaining obvious coincidences, and obviously there is a lot they didnt know back then.. is that the tiger territory was 2x bigger etc and it seems like some things werent explainable back then, but now it seems like more is known about. But still interesting.

I want to see your explanations..

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article...ne.0174711 Reply