WildFact
›
Information Section
›
Questions
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
Which are stronger pound for pound Herbivores or Carnivores?
|
The site is given on post #8 which also says: The Rhinoceros Beetle (or Rhino Beetle) belongs to the subfamily (Dynastinae) and is part of the family of scarab beetles (Scarabaeidae).
At any rate, be it rhinoceros or dung beetle, a vegetarian beetle is per-size the world's strongest animal.  (12-01-2016, 01:07 AM)Vinay Wrote: Sir @tigerluver ji Is this nicer enough?? No it is not, This sentence is kind of taunting. It look like you want to have fun rather than any discussion here. Please behave yourself
Great Bear Almanac by Gary Brown - Strength.
Bears possess enormous strength, regardless of species or size. The strength of a bear is difficult to measure, but observations of bears moving rocks, carrying animal carcasses, removing large logs from the side of a cabin, and digging cavernous holes are all indicative of enormous power. No animal of equal size is as powerful. A bear may kill a moose, elk, or deer by a single blow to the neck with a powerful foreleg, then lift the carcass in its mouth and carry it for great distances. "The strength... is in keeping with size," describes Ben East in 'Bears'. "He is very powerfully built, a heavy skeleton overlaid with thick layers of muscle as strong as rawhide rope. He can hook his long, grizzly-like front claws under a slab of rock that three grown men could not lift, and flip it over effortlessly..." "...a brown bear took a thousand-pound steer a half mile up an almost vertical mountain, much of the way through alder tangles with trunks three or four inches thick." Strength and power are not only the attributes of large bears but also of the young. The author observed a yearling American black bear, while searching for insects, turn over a flat-shaped rock ( between 310 and 325 pounds ) "backhanded" with a single foreleg. The bear was captured the following day in a management action and weighed 120 pounds. ( in my own words )... I'm sure that when the author says: "No animal of equal size is as powerful" he was referring to land-based mammals. Unlike these online blog-sites, such explanations are unnecessary as common sense applies. In my own opinion, no land-based mammal of equal size is stronger than a bear and no other bear species is pound-for-pound as strong as a grizzly. Understand though that measuring strength among different animal species is ( like measuring intelligence ) not an exact science. All any of us can do is to voice our opinion - which should however be backed by at least some sound reasoning.  (12-01-2016, 01:31 AM)brotherbear Wrote: The site is given on post #8 which also says: The Rhinoceros Beetle (or Rhino Beetle) belongs to the subfamily (Dynastinae) and is part of the family of scarab beetles (Scarabaeidae).Most I've seen says the Dung Beetle is the King "After months of grueling tests, a species of horned dung beetle takes the title for world's strongest insect. The beetle, called Onthophagus taurus, was found to be able to pull a whopping 1,141 times its own body weight, which is the equivalent of a 150-pound (70 kilogram) person lifting six full double-decker buses.Mar 23, 2010" Super Bug! World's Strongest Insect Revealed - Live Science Bugs and small creatures do not follow the same rules as larger and heavier creatures. " Best Answer: Bugs are comparatively strong because of the principle of scaling. Basically, it's because the weight of an organism is based on its volume, but muscles are more related to surface area (because bones and organs are stored inside the body, and muscles work better mechanically laid out around the outside). Remember that surface area is squared, while volume is cubed. So, lets say that you took a bug and made it twice as big - it would be 4 times as strong (2^2=4), but it would weigh 8 times as much (2^3=8). Now, lets say that you made the bug human sized, say, 100 times larger. That means it would be ten thousand times as strong as a normal bug (100^2=10,000), but it would be one million times as heavy (100^3=1,000,000) as a bug. It would basically collapse under its own weight. Basically, mass increases much faster than strength increases when you enlarge something. To compensate, humans (and other large animals) have sturdier builds. We're stronger than bugs in an absolute sense, but compared to body weight, we get left in the dust, since so much of our strength has to be devoted to supporting its own bulk. " https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index...109AAbTEAa That's why this question is too hard to answer, strength is never cut and dry. Animals are strong in the areas they need to be. 
Mr. Vinay I know carnivores win over herbivores for reasons I mentioned. Does not mean that they have lesser muscles. Cats can kill prey that is even 5 times their weight though they need not be stronger. My question has clarity. That is why many replied. It has more clarity than your deleted topic jaguars and leopards are same. Period. I will try to contribute more to this thread in coming days. Discussion will be hopefully interesting.
12-01-2016, 08:14 AM
( This post was last modified: 12-01-2016, 10:29 AM by sanjay
Edit Reason: Warning for bad words
)
(12-01-2016, 08:00 AM)parvez Wrote: Mr. Vinay I know carnivores win over herbivores for reasons I mentioned. Does not mean that they have lesser muscles. Cats can kill prey that is even 5 times their weight though they need not be stronger. My question has clarity. That is why many replied. It has more clarity than your deleted topic jaguars and leopards are same. Period. I will try to contribute more to this thread in coming days. Discussion will be hopefully interesting. Mr.Pervez Ji I know 200 KG Tiger kills 1 ton Gaur. I compare 1ton Tiger Vs 1 ton Gaur because it easily box gaur. Clarity... IF this is Clarity... OK Carry on  which are more muscular or stronger pound for pound .............The energy obtained by all living organisms on the earth is from sun Edit (By Sanjay): Deleted some part of this post. Giving a official warning to @ 
Although the arguments presented here are of good quality, I would hint towards carnivores (especially felines/ursines) as being stronger pound-for-pound more often.
It is one of the reasons why a tiger will almost always (exceptions like that one sambar deer) be able to take down almost any kind of herbivore of its own or slightly greater weight class, not to mention carnivores usually have more fast-twitch fiber ratios than herbivores (with the possible exception of power-horses like Percherons), possibly greater bone density (my theory, not proven) due to the strenuous task of physically killing these creatures. Mating fights, territorial displays, and other common drama are shared by both herbivores and carnivores, but herbivores don't ambush/kill creatures to the extent that carnivores do, if at all. But herbivores are almost always much larger than carnivores, so this discussion is almost quite pointless. As some posters previously mentioned above, there are many factors including: -Body mass. -Total muscle mass and muscle mass relative to body mass. -Muscle fiber distribution. -Muscle mass distribution. -Bone distribution. -Mineral bone density. -Bone diameter and mineral bone diameter. -Cross-sectional bone density. -Other factors not listed. Me and @Pckts discussed this in "Human Strength", and we both agreed that although some humans can be ridiculously strong for their size, they don't compare much in that aspect to wild animals (as with many other aspects). As I suggested, there is something in a tiger's muscles that must make it ridiculously strong compared to even a strong, large primate such as a gorilla.
It is better you mind your own words. A poster like you must be banned. I will contact mods regarding this. Penay.
Interesting discussion. Regarding energy, this is what my ecology background as gotten me too.
Energy concentration by individual does not have a relationship by tropic level, although herbivores are excellent at concentrating energy at the community level. Community is the key here, as the extra energy available is converted into biomass, i.e .kg/hectare. Thus, the extra energy at the lower trophic levels is accounted for by spreading it across more individuals rather than concentrating it at a greater amount per individual. In a sense, energy has a tangible, mass-related manifestation, which would undo any pound for pound correlation as an elephant, for instance, despite its great power, still weighs as much as an elephant.
Great post tigerluver I agree. Plants and herbivores seem to be good at concentring energy. That seem to be the reason they are bigger. But I will do research on if they are stronger pound for pound as far muscle mass is concerned and post it here in detail.
Yes polar, being alpha predators in their ecosystem and facing every animal including elephants and evolving and proving every time as alpha predators in their ecosystem from time to time with lot of hurdles in between must have made their muscles strong and robust. You can see there are cases of tigers attacking and even killing elephants. Taking example of Bengal tiger there are cases where fight took for several hours and at last the pachyderm is killed. Even in water they don't seem to be afraid of crocodiles though there are few cases here and there where tiger was killed while swimming in deep waters. They have evolved as SUPREME predators. So their muscles too must have developed to be much stronger as per a RHYTHM as I have explained in canines and claws thread. They are deeply muscular. All this must have contributed for their muscular development since generations and ages.
What animal can kill another animal is not the best contest of strength. There are many factors involved, as Polar mentioned. The big cats are expert hunters and assassins. A big cat is an incredible combination of great strength, speed, quick reflexes, and agility. On top of this he has the tools-of-the-trade for killing and the knowledge and natural killing-instincts to use them. The big cats are well known for slaying animals much bigger and stronger than themselves.
As polar mentioned carnivores in general seem to have developed fast twitching muscle fibres through which they can quickly grab hold of prey through their weapons and combined force and also with excellent senses which are disproportionate in herbivores. That (fast twitching muscle fibre) seems to be one of major things why they are able to hunt herbivores.
Brute physical strength is simply one of many advantages one species might have over another in a confrontation. I don't believe that we can accurately state that animals can be separated by carnivore or herbivore as one group being stronger than the other; makes no sense.
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 4 Guest(s) |