|Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.|
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
|Siberian Tiger v Eurasian Brown Bear|
|Topic Started: Feb 5 2012, 08:13 PM (28,290 Views)|
|Taipan||Feb 5 2012, 08:13 PM Post #1|
Siberian Tiger - Panthera tigris altaica
The Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris altaica), also known as the Amur tiger, is a tiger subspecies inhabiting mainly the Sikhote Alin mountain region with a small subpopulation in southwest Primorye province in the Russian Far East. In 2005, there were 331–393 adult-subadult Amur tigers in this region, with a breeding adult population of about 250 individuals. The Siberian tiger is reddish-rusty or rusty-yellow in colour, with narrow black transverse stripes. Measurements taken by scientists of the Siberian Tiger Project in Sikhote-Alin range from 178 to 208 cm (70 to 82 in) in head and body length measured in straight line, with an average of 195 cm (77 in) for males; and for females ranging from 167 to 182 cm (66 to 72 in) with an average of 174 cm (69 in). The average tail measures 99 cm (39 in) in males and 91 cm (36 in) in females. The longest male “Maurice” measured 309 cm (122 in) in total length (tail of 101 cm (40 in)) and had a chest girth of 127 cm (50 in). The longest female “Maria Ivanna” measured 270 cm (110 in) in total length (tail of 88 cm (35 in)) and had a chest girth of 108 cm (43 in). These measurements show that the present Amur tiger is longer than the Bengal tiger and the African lion. According to modern research of wild Siberian tigers in Sikhote-Alin, an average adult male of more than 35 months of age weighs 176.4 kg (389 lb), the average asymptotic limit being 222.3 kg (490 lb); an adult tigress weighs 117.9 kg (260 lb). The mean weight of historical Siberian tigers is supposed to be higher: 215.3 kg (475 lb) for male tigers and 137.5 kg (303 lb) for females. In May 2011, a male called “Banzai” weighing 207 kg (460 lb) was radio-collared. This individual is heavier but smaller in size than a previously radio-collared male. The largest male, with largely assured references, measured 350 cm (140 in) "over curves", equivalent to 330 cm (130 in) between pegs. The tail length in fully grown males is about 1 m (39 in). Weights of up to 318 kg (700 lb) have been recorded and exceptionally large males weighing up to 384 kg (850 lb) are mentioned in the literature but, according to Mazák, none of these cases can be confirmed via reliable sources.
Eurasian Brown Bear - Ursus arctos arctos
The Eurasian brown bear (Ursus arctos arctos) is a subspecies of brown bear, found across northern Eurasia. The Eurasian brown bear is also known as the common brown bear, European brown bear and colloquially by many other names. The Eurasian brown bear has brown fur, which can range from yellow-brownish to dark brown, red brown, and almost black in some cases; albinism has also been recorded. The fur is dense to varying degree and the hair can grow up to 10 cm in length. The shape of the head is normally quite round with relatively small and round ears, a wide skull and a mouth equipped with 42 teeth, including predatory teeth. It has a powerful bone structure, large paws, equipped with big claws, which can grow up to 10 cm in length. The weight varies depending on habitat and time of the year. A full grown male weighs on average 265–355 kg (583–780 lb). The largest Eurasian brown bear recorded was 481 kg (1,058 lb) and was nearly 2.5 m (8.2 ft) long. Females typically range between 150–250 kg (330–550 lb).
|Ursus arctos||May 28 2012, 03:48 AM Post #166|
It doesn't directly mean anything.
The formula for strength (assuming muscle equality-note that the higher % fast twitch of the tiger would produce more force by some margin; I'd need to do more research):
Mass of the muscle/fiber length of that muscle * Moment arm/lever arm (i.e. leg length)
We can rearrange this to:
Moment arm/fiber length of that muscle * mass of the muscle/lever arm
The formula for flexibility (meaning: the ability for the muscles to maintain strength through a range of movement) is:
Fiber length of that muscle/moment arm
What I mean by the ability to maintain strength through a range of movements, here are some graphs showing muscle force relative to the maximum as a joint rotates 90 degrees for fiber length/moment arm values of 1, 3, and 5:
From here. 45 degrees to either side of resting/normal angle isn't that much, yet we can see when the ratio = 1 force dropped off to 0 before reaching that end.
Therefore, we can actually write the formula for strength as:
Flexibility-1*mass of the muscle/lever arm=
Mass of the muscle/(flexibility * lever arm)
What the relative length of the deltopectoral crest tells us is that bears have longer moment arms for the attaching muscles. This would suggest less flexibility and greater force, but is only half the flexibility equation. We don't have info on muscle fiber length.
What we do have info on is the shoulder joint, which suggests brown bears are more flexible than at least the lion and wolf:
The fact we can safely plug in higher flexibility values for the bear (even if we can't quantify them) tells us that in this regard the bear's longer moment arm is only misleading as to the actual differences between the animals.
Carl Gans, however, suggested that one reason for more distal attachments may be to allow larger muscles to fit smoothly inside an animal, so that it doesn't have to have excessive muscle cross section areas. This could be the case, but we'd need more info to draw confident conclusions.
1) Doesn't actually mean anything for moment arm per unit of muscle mass.
2) May suggest that the associated muscles are larger in the bear, but we don't have enough info yet to draw conclusions.
Glad I could help, Kurtz.
|Gregoire||Jun 18 2012, 09:26 PM Post #167|
|at parity cats are slightly better fighters - so, 6/10 tiger at parity,but at average 7/10 bears|
|AlphaWolf||Jun 24 2012, 11:07 PM Post #168|
Considering it is a fair fight and both species are fully-grown adult males, the brown bear would obviously win! It's definately stronger, has more bite force, it is heavier and has bigger claws.
Tigers can only kill bears in ambushes. But even on ambushes, they avoid adult male brown bears..............................
|cidermaster||Jun 25 2012, 02:46 AM Post #169|
Do not underestimate the tiger,it has sheer speed on its side.Both spieces have the weaponery to kill each other,if the Bear is slightly heavier it is pretty much an even fight,at parity the Tiger becomes favourite,at a big weight advantage the Bear is almost certain to win.
Of course a Tiger would much rather take this foe by suprize..............
|Ursus arctos||Jul 5 2012, 03:54 AM Post #170|
An email Jungle Sprout got from a researcher (Linda Kerley):
|tyrannotitan||Jul 31 2012, 07:36 AM Post #171|
|Tiger would win, people found a bear carcass made by a tiger.|
|Neofelis||Jul 31 2012, 01:38 PM Post #172|
|All this info from Ursus Arctos and people favor the tiger. The cold hard fatcs say the bear is the winner. The Bear has a strength Advantage, Definiteky a Grappling advantage, The bears skull is made for taking shallow bitfor a fight, Bears are more durably and for a Tiger to make a skull or neck bite, it has to subdue o grapple the bears which will be very hard so bear 7/10.|
|Cat||Aug 1 2012, 01:33 AM Post #173|
|Actually the last post from Ursus seems to support more the tiger than the bear. It's a pity that the post was cut due to the screen size I guess. Notice that when the researcher wrote about shatun bears eating tigers, she seems to mean tiger cubs, not adults.|
|Killer Lion||Aug 1 2012, 01:43 AM Post #174|
|Tiger would win they have killed and ate bears|
|Jinfengopteryx||Aug 1 2012, 01:55 AM Post #175|
|Evidence? A Tiger catching a bear by suprise does not really count, because it's unfair. Also was it a male or a female? I won't wonder if a male tiger can overpower a female bear. If the tiger is a male, the bear also should be.|
|Panzerdivision||Aug 1 2012, 12:29 PM Post #176|
This is the most epic natural battle, nowhere else in the world do 2 apex and extremely powerful land predators overlap (apart from the extremely rare Polar Bear/Brown Bear interactions). People really should make a documentary on Siberian Tiger/Brown Bear interaction.
Here is the best information I found on a different forum about Siberian Tigers vs Brown Bears,
Edited by Panzerdivision, Aug 1 2012, 12:32 PM.
|Vodmeister||Aug 1 2012, 12:32 PM Post #177|
King of Kings
I've already posted this on the Tiger predation on Brown Bear thread, and I will continue the debate here (not being a troll or anything).
The following post is entirely credited to P Tigris's
Before we begin, these are scientifically verified dimensions of Ussuri brown bears, they are about 150 lbs heavier than Amur Tiger on average, despite that Tigers generally come out on top;
These are quick quotes justifying wild occurrences between the two beasts, Amur tigers and Brown bears, explained thoroughly it is more common for any bear to try and usurp/attack a female brown bear, but we are yet to see any documents of a bear usurping kills or killing from a prime male tiger.
These documents show of mountain lions, AKA pumas/cougars predation on bears, and interactions of course. This also explains very accurately the aggression and determination the common bear would use in any encounter, not being the aggressor with a cougar, would very rarely be an aggressor with a much larger, stronger, and more intimidating tiger.
A quick fight shows the power of any tiger who decides to attack the much more docile brown bear. The bear does not have the proper tools and weaponry to take on a prime tiger, of course, if it doesn't have a huge size advantage.
Dale Miquelle of the WCS Russia Program had radio collared Amur tigers, and knowingly reported that none of the tigers had been killed by any shape, form, or mass of bear.
A graphic analysis basing off of tiger predation on bear, with reliable evidence, basing off of recorded cases in the following occasions, recorded of course, as tigers had made predation on bear.
"The Bear Killer" Of India, reliably reported to have killed several, if not many, bears. Take off spotted cases, this beast probably killed even more bears then reported, as no tiger is viewed 24/7.
From Last Big Cats by Erwin A. Bauer, quoted.
"Hornocker and Quigley bring their great experience with North American mountain lions to their Siberian tiger investigations. Earlier, on the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, Hornocker discovered that a single female cougar had acquired a taste for wild sheep and alone was endangering the desert bighorns living on the range. Recently on the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve, he and Quigley discovered a similar situation. A 400-pound (180 kg) male Siberian tiger had developed an even stranger preference for just one prey: brown bears. Although red deer and other game were readily avaiable, this cat stalked and ate bears almost twice as heavy as itself. The biologists tracked the tiger through the snow to eight separate bear kills, all of which seemed to have been accomplished without great effort, except one. In that kill, there was evidence of a vicious battle with bits of bear hide strewn over a wide area, but the tiger had won."
More quotes stating the Amur tiger's predation on bears.
Accurate dimensions given of the Amur tiger, with, of course, quotes stating interactions and predation of the Ussuri bear.
Karanth and Sunquists studies of Nagarhole tigers, which consist of the much smaller South Indian tigers, which exclude the much bigger Central and Northern Indian tigers. More cases of tigers and tigresses killing bears much larger then themselves.
Annual diet of Amur tigers in the Primorksy and Khabarovsk regions.
Explanation of tiger predation on bear, caught from reliable sources and analogies.
Shows the superior dominance of the Amur tiger compared to the Ussuri Brown bear, also explains the territorial behavior of the tiger.
More Tiger-Bear interactions of the Sikhote-Alin.
Bears do not typically fight consisting with mortality and serious wounds, as they would rather have no conflict at all.
A tigress mauled and killed a bear much bigger then herself. Mammals of the Soviet Union By Vladimir Georgievich Geptner, A. A. Nasimovich, Andreĭ Grigorʹevich.
Of equal weights, the tiger is certain to win mostly, but I agree, if of largest weights, grizzlies can top over 1000 lbs, and would easily kill a tiger, as quoted.
Munsey's Magazine: Volume 25 - Page 126
Fight account (moon bear v. Indo-chinese tiger)
"Chambers's Edinburgh journal" - William & Robert Chambers. - pg. 388 - Tiger vs. Brown bear
"Tiger" - Stephen Mills - pg. 28 - Tiger vs. Bear
Tiger v. grizzly, interesting battle, shows the superior tiger weaponry (claw wise)
Sikhote-Alin tiger/bear interaction information
Search for the Golden Moon Bear: Science and Adventure in Southeast Asia By Sy Montgomery, Gary Galbreath - Page 71.
Of equal weights, the tiger is certain to win mostly, but I agree, if of largest weights, grizzlies can top over 1000 lbs, and would kill a tiger, as quoted.
Munsey's Magazine: Volume 25 - Page 126
"Chambers's Edinburgh journal" - William & Robert Chambers. - pg. 388 - Tiger vs. Brown bear
Added another 2,
|Cat||Aug 1 2012, 10:23 PM Post #178|
Great informative post, thanx!
As for the statement above, I think weight informations about bears don't tell us much if the time of the year isn't specified. A 600 lbs bear before denning would likeley have less muscle mass and less fitness than a 500 lbs bear in early summer (assuming both being healthy animals in their prime). In such a case (600 lbs in autumn), a 500 lbs tiger would hold the advantage despite the weight difference. If 264 kg is the year-round average for U. arctos lasiotus, IMO the average individual of this subspecies would have the edge against an average 180-190 kg Amur tiger.
Edited by Cat, Aug 1 2012, 11:51 PM.
|Panzerdivision||Aug 2 2012, 12:59 AM Post #179|
I think this is the best answer to this debate,
|Ursus arctos||Aug 2 2012, 07:36 AM Post #180|
I am not sure what the body fat % is of Ursus arctos lasiotus.
Knowing more about their diet could give clues:
Quoting "Implications of a high-energy and low-protein diet on the body composition, fitness, and competitive abilities of black (Ursus americanus) and grizzly (Ursus arctos) bears":
That a 600 lb bear before denning could have less muscle mass than a 500 lb bear in mid summer is definitely true.
The two most extreme populations (fattest and least fat) of brown bears I have seen info on:
Population; mean Spring, Summer, Fall body fat %
GMU13 of Alaska; 9.3%, 5.5%, ~30%
Flathead River Draingage and upper Columbia River drainage males; 21, 33, 37
Flathead River Draingage and upper Columbia River drainage females; 19, 33, 37
a) GMU13 bears increased in body mass by 15% in mid-summer vs spring, matching expectations from the article quoted above about bears eating high protein food mostly building lean body mass. Do note that an earlier study, cited by that one, on captive brown bears found this to be the case (in that study they fed young bears different foods and measured how their body fat and lean body mass changed).
b) "Implications of a high-energy and low-protein diet on the body composition, fitness, and competitive abilities of black (Ursus americanus) and grizzly (Ursus arctos) bears" is the source for the body fat values of those two British Columbia bear populations.
For GMU13 bears:
500 lb summer bear lean body mass: 472.5 lbs
600 lb fall bear lean body mass: 420 lbs
In those two largely herbivorous brown bear populations (in which the bears are on average much smaller than 500 lbs, so perhaps a bit unrealistic):
500 lb summer bear lean body mass: 335lbs
600 lb fall bear lean body mass: 378 lbs
So that is definitely true for some populations, but not true for others.
Also very interesting to note:
To match a 500 lb bear with the average summer body fat % of GMU13 it would take a 705 lb bear with Flathead/Upper Columbia River drainage.
Assuming body fat is of little help in a fight compared to lean body mass, a 500 lb bear from GMU13 could be an even match with bears from some other populations that are 200 lbs heavier during the same time of year!
(If that time of year is summer)
Although, because the average body mass of male grizzlies from Flathead/Upper Columbia drainages was 163.6 kg it would take a bear twice the size of the populations average, and at that point I don't think we can assume it would be otherwise normal as well (so big because it is fat, or so big because it has a different diet higher in protein?).
Strictly hypothetical, but nonetheless interesting to think about.
Either way, it is clear that yes: what you said is definitely something that we should consider heavily.
Not only does it vary a lot depending on time of year, but also within the same time of year when comparing between populations.
Differences can be (but aren't necessarily) much more extreme than even the 500 lb vs 600 lb hypothetical you gave.
I would love to see more research on Ursus arctos lasiotus. How fat are they?
On the one hand they are much larger than the Flathead/Upper Columbia river drainage bears suggesting they may have a higher protein diet to get larger, but on the other hand if that is so the protein must come primarily form plant sources because they are largely herbivorous:
5.1. The composition of feed
The analysis of feces showed that the plant food in the annual diet of animals, accounting for
UT 90%. According to GF Bromley (1965), this figure is lower - 66%. Foods of animal-prois
circulation may also be important. Despite the low content in the second-
Euclidean diet (9%), in different seasons, their share could increase. In April, it was
46%, primarily due to eating the dead bodies of hoofed animals.
Previously published list of edible brown bear of the Sikhote-Alin mountain plants con-
contains 27 species and genera (Bromley, 1965). Based on the definition contained in the go and
feces of brown bear parts of plants supplemented by a list that was 66-Vie
Dov vascular plants. In addition to vascular plants of the brown bear forages are
brown algae, lichen and peltigera fruiting bodies of certain fungi.
In the Sikhote-Alin brown bear eats many invertebrates (oligochaetes,
molluscs, insects) and vertebrate (bony fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals,
melting) of the animals. Among the invertebrates in the diet of the bear the most important role played by population
komye. Power salmon is not significant for the bear Sikhote-Alin and more
found in the diet of animals that live on the eastern slope of. Meat of mammals
brown bear eats willingly. Most often in the feces were the remains of ungulates (6.2%):
red deer, roe deer, wild boar, musk deer, predators rarely (2.1%): brown and Himalayan bears, a bar-
female, raccoon dogs and tigers. All in all mammals share of the annual accounts for 8.7%
The share of earthy substances (soil, clay, etc.) in the feces of the animals was 1.3%. In
consumption of minerals may occur in the solonetzes (Panichev, 1987).
From here, copy and pasted into google translate.
The Flathead/Upper columbia river drainage bear's % ungulate in the diet was 4%, 0.6%, and 24% during the three waking seasons. Herbs were 60.5%, 5.9%, and 7.2%, while major fruits were 6.2%, 81.3%, and 21.8%. Minor fruits and roots-corms also became important in fall, reaching 13.2% and 28.3% respectively. Grass at 14.2% in spring was also important.
"Implications of..." is again the source (as throughout this post) on that population.
IMO, U. a. lasiotus looks like it is on the herbivore side of things.
I would definitely like more info though.
Regarding Peter's posts (quoted by Panzerdevision):
He has read far more literature regarding brown bear - tiger relations than I have, but I must disagree with some of his opinions and interpretations of translations.
Such as his belief that tigers would have the advantage when both stand on their hind legs and his view of Syseov's story about Amba.
Either way, he is definitely a top quality poster.
Quick note regarding size of GMU13 bears; info posted by Grahhh of ShaggyGod:
He has a long list of tables from captured bears in this region, of which the above is the first. I wont post all of them. An asterisk next to the weight means it is an estimate.
Looking through the tables the largest non-estimated weight I see is 662 lbs for a 10.5 year old male captured on 5/15/84 (who was shot and killed 3 years later).
The largest weight given was an estimated 800 lbs for a 13.5 year old male captured on 5/16/84, who was then shot and killed in September of that year.
I hate hunting.
Still trying to find info on the diet of GMU13 bears. From "Population dynamics and life history trade-offs of moose (Alces alces) in south-central Alaska":
Will have to track down those sources.
Edited by Ursus arctos, Aug 2 2012, 08:40 AM.
|1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)|
|Go to Next Page|
|« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »|