The tiger chases after his prey in large jumps. From: Grzimeks Enzyklopädie (1987:11) Volume 4.
K. Ullas Karanth, Centre for Wildlife Studies Mysore, India, has studied the tiger in India. He reports about his findings under the title, “Tigers in India: A Critical Review of Field Censuses” in Ronald L. Tilson et al. (eds.), Tigers of the World (1987):
“Tiger, leopard and dhole (= red dog) do not normally kill very large prey like elephant (Elephas maximum) and rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis), and these species have not been taken into account. … From the studies of Schaller (1967), Sunquist 1981) and Johnsingh (1983), I have derived the average requirement of live weight of prey for three predators as: tiger –3000 kg; leopard – 1000 kg; and dhole – 490 kg per year respectively. Several studies of large carnivores (Schaller 1967, 1972, Muckenhirn 1973, Sunquist 1981, Tamang 1982), show that such predators usually do not exercise a decisive limiting influence on the prey populations. Estimated rates of prey biomass removed annually by predators seldom exceed 10% of the total standing biomass. … Unit weights used for predators are: tiger – 113 kg; leopard – 34 kg and dohle – 13 kg.
“Estimates available for crude biomass of ungulate prey in some protected areas of South Asia are: 766 kg/km² and 886 kg/km² in Wilpattu and Galoya of Sri Lanka and 1,708 kg/ km² for Schaller’s study area in Kanha (Eisenberg and Seidensticker 1976). Johnsingh (1983) estimated an average prey biomass of 3,320 kg/km² in his study area in Bandipur, even though the biomass for the entire reserve is far lower. Estimate of the biomass of prey in Chitawan, based on line transects, was 2,798 kg/km² (Tamang 1982).”
|
Year |
Reserve |
Tiger biomass kg/km² |
Leopard biomass kg/km² |
Dhole biomass kg/km² |
Total predator biomass kg/km² |
Prey Biomass needed kg/km² |
|
1983 |
Sariska |
3.53 |
1.06 |
0 |
4.59 |
1,250 |
|
1984 |
Dudwa |
13.64 |
0.39 |
- |
14.03 |
3,735 |
|
1982 |
Kanha |
10.70 |
1.95 |
- |
12.65 |
3.415 |
|
1984 |
Ranthambore |
10.37 |
3.70 |
0 |
14.07 |
3,841 |
|
1982 |
Corbett |
19.74 |
3.07 |
- |
22.81 |
6,142 |
|
1984 |
Melghat |
5.75 |
1.08 |
1.56 |
8.39 |
2,434 |
|
1983 |
Bandhavgarh |
16.14 |
2.59 |
0.74 |
19.47 |
5,327 |
|
1984 |
Nagarjunasagar |
2.45 |
2.26 |
0.87 |
5.58 |
1,643 |
|
1984 |
Bandipur |
8.68 |
3.10 |
2.45 |
14.23 |
4,141 |
|
1983 |
Periyar |
5.96 |
0.66 |
8.37 |
14.99 |
4,929 |
Adapted from K. Ullas Karanth (1987:123) Table 2. This shows us, where the tiger and other predators are able to live in India and where not, how much ungulate prey biomass must be there at least. The figures for “prey biomass needed” are minimum figures, because the tiger is not able to eat all the prey, which it kills. Much of it is quickly spoiled in the tropical heat. In an arctic climate, so much ungulate prey biomass is not able to live, because the growing season of the plants is too short, the climate too cold. This also disproves the idea that the cave lion and tiger, which have lived in northern Siberia and Yukon Alaska, together with the woolly mammoth, were adapted to an arctic climate.