2004
DOI: 10.1078/1616-5047-00160
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prey selection by the Indian tiger (Panthera tigris tigris) in Nagarjunasagar Srisailam Tiger Reserve, India

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
26
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
2
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It remains unclear why the average weight of tiger prey was lower and the diversity of tiger diet higher during our study than during McDougal or Sunquist. It has been suggested that tigers include more species, as well as smaller species, in their diet when their primary prey (cervids) are unavailable (Sunquist et al 1999, Reddy et al 2004). However, owing to enhanced protection, cervid populations were most abundant during our study (Mishra 1982) suggesting that this was not the case.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It remains unclear why the average weight of tiger prey was lower and the diversity of tiger diet higher during our study than during McDougal or Sunquist. It has been suggested that tigers include more species, as well as smaller species, in their diet when their primary prey (cervids) are unavailable (Sunquist et al 1999, Reddy et al 2004). However, owing to enhanced protection, cervid populations were most abundant during our study (Mishra 1982) suggesting that this was not the case.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies of tiger diet have been conducted throughout much of the range of the species, including India (Karanth & Sunquist 1995, Chundawat et al 1999, Biswas & Sankar 2002, Sankar & Johnsingh 2002, Bagchi et al 2003, Reddy et al 2004, Andheria et al 2007), Nepal (Seidensticker 1976a, McDougal 1977, Sunquist 1981, Johnsingh 1992, Seidensticker & McDougal 1993, Støen & Wegge 1996, Wegge et al 2009), Bangladesh (Khan 2004), Thailand (Rabinowitz 1989), Bhutan (Wang & MacDonald 2009) and Russia (Miquelle et al 1996). These studies indicate that tigers generally prey upon 8-15 species, and while they occasionally consume prey weighing up to 1,000 kg, the majority of tiger diet consists of small prey (i.e.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With this, the compensations paid for livestock losses by PTR management are also increasing (see the compensations records presented in (S3 Table). Tigers prey on large and intermediate bodied prey animals [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. Thus, understanding how people and tigers interact in this landscape might provide conservation planners with important management insights for tiger conservation in livestock dominated landscapes.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tiger, leopard, dhole, primates, gaur, wild boar and porcupine in one cluster could suggest the prey preference of the predators. Tiger scat analysis made by Reddy et al (2004), revealed that wild boar (Sus scrofa) was the most common prey followed by chital (Axis axis) and sambar (Rusa unicolor). In a detailed study Bargali et al (2004) reported that the plant matter was greater than animal matter in bear scats in all seasons and moreover, the presence of crop remains in the scat during the monsoon suggested their crop dependence, thereby increasing chances of human-bear conflict.…”
Section: E-37mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Use of indirect evidences in population density estimation and in determining prey-predator relations have been emphasized globally (Collins, 1981;Putman, 1984;Marques et al, 2001). Recently such indirect evidences from Indian forests have been used to study the population density, prey-predator relations and diet habits (Karanth and Sunquist, 1995;Jathanna et al, 2003;Kushwaha et al, 2004;Bargali et al, 2004 andReddy et al, 2004). The present work uses indirect evidences as an important field tool to ascertain the relative abundance of prey and predator and their activity in the selected shola forest areas under varied human interferences so that the conservation priorities could be ascertained for these isolated shola patches.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%