Page 1
1 CHAPTER 19. RELATIONSHIP OF THE AMUR TIGER WITH BURYM AND HIMALAYISH BEARERS I.V. Seryodkin, J.M. Goodrich, A.V. Kostrya, B.O. Schleiere, E.N. Smirnov, L.L. Curley, D.J. Michell INTRODUCTION Within the limits of the distribution of the Amur tiger in the south of the Far East of Russia everywhere live brown and Himalayan bears. All three species prefer coniferous-broadleaved and broad-leaved forests. The size, structure and mutual overlap of tiger habitat (Yudakov, Nikolayev, 1987, Goodrich et al, 1999) and two species of bears (Kostyria et al., 2002; our data), as well as wide seasonal movements of bears (Seryodkin et al, 2002b) in the south The Far East suggests the simultaneous finding of a large number uneven-aged individuals of these species in some areas. Having common habitats, tigers and bears are in contact with each other, as a result of which a complex is established between the species relationships. The relationship between the Amur tiger and the brown and Himalayan bear is not specifically studied. In numerous publications on these species there are mainly episodic and survey data on this issue collected by different authors in selected areas Primorsky and Khabarovsk Territories, which do not give a complete picture of the nature relations and mutual influence of predators on each other (Bromley, 1965; Gorokhov, 1973; Kostoglod, 1977; Khramtsov, 1993, and others). Substantially complement the picture of relationships has become It is possible, thanks to the application of the method of radiotelemetry, along with the traditional methods study predators. Such a comprehensive research program, which includes Tracking of radio tagged tigers, brown and Himalayan bears was carried out in Sikhote-Alin State Biosphere Reserve and its environs (Michell et al, 1993; Seryodkin et al., 2002a). Analysis of the results obtained and its discussion using all previously published information allowed to more fully reveal this topic. The Amur tiger has the international status of a protected species and needs careful studying its ecology. This is especially true of issues reflecting the impact on it of other species potentially capable of affecting its population. Among them - brown and Himalayan bears. Understanding the factors of mutual influence of bears and tigers has a large value for the preservation of the Amur tiger. An important role in this is played by the study of such aspects ecology, as the influence of bears on the mortality of tigers, the use of tiger victims by bears, the importance of bears in feeding tigers, food competition of predators. Knowledge of the ecology of bears is also necessary for the reasonable management of their populations. Knowledge of the relationship between individual species of animals gives a holistic understanding of the structure and functioning biocenoses of the Far East taiga, which in turn should contribute to their conservation and rational use. MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY Field observations were carried out in 1992-2003. in the Sikhote-Alin biospheric reserve and its surroundings. Collection of material was made on the basis of animal studies on the traces of their life activity and using radiotelemetry. The analysis used information obtained from 61 radiolabeled individuals, of which 30 - Amur tigers (13 males and 17 females), 14 - brown bears (7 males and 7 females) and 17 - Himalayan bears (13 males and 4 females).
Page 2
2 Victims of tigers were found when visiting predator sites, certain using radiotelemetric methods, especially in cases where tigers were delayed in One place for more than a day, as well as for random finds. Found Victims and Other Traces the life of the tigers were described in detail. In case the tiger was not known (by accident found the victim), his sex and age, the researchers tried to determine the size of the prints paws (Chapter 7). The presence of teddy bears on the victims was noted: they indicated the sight of a bear, following the tracks described their activities with the victim, the nature of the possible relationship with the tigers, time stay and degree of utilization of the victim by both predators. In total, 427 victims were found tigers, 215 of them during the wakefulness of the bears. The extra-medical period for bears was conditionally limited by time from April 1 to November 30, which corresponds to the average time of release from the den and the occurrence in the den of the bears in the Sikhote-Alin (Bromley, 1965; Seryodkin et al., 2003). Victims pertaining to the remaining (paid) period were not taken into account when analysis of the tiger victims' visits to bears, as the probability of visits by the bears was is small. Depending on how the victim of the tiger gets a bear, we have identified three situations. The first is that the bear finds the remains of the victim after the tiger, using most of the meat, he leaves it. The second situation: a bear, finding a tiger on a victim, He drives him away and takes possession of the prey. The third situation highlighted by us is that neither the tiger nor the bear leave the victim and feed on it at a time when one of the predators allows you to do this, temporarily giving the place of feeding to another. The time of presence of tigers and bears on the victims were determined by the freshness of traces of their vital activity, visual registration, and for radio-labeled animals - using radio facilities. The excrement of predators was detected when they were trodden and accidentally. It has been described 308 excrement of tigers. The excrement dismantled and determined the species belonging to them components (wool, bones, claws, hooves). To determine the value of bears in the diet of the tiger, two methods were used. AT The first case calculated the proportion of bears of each species among the tiger victims found. The second method was based on an analysis of the contents of predator excrement. The role of each species in The tiger's diet was determined by the volume fraction of bears in excrement. On the routes with a total length of 170 km, traversed along the paths used predators, 641 marking trees were described and the character of the tigers left on them and bears marks. All the trees directly adjacent to the paths were inspected. On The following tags were registered in the trees: tiger's urine points; chalices of tigers and bears (determined by wool); snacks, bad marks and bear labels. 32 denominations of Himalayan and 12 - brown radiolabed bears were surveyed. Type and The structure of the lair was assessed in order to determine the protective properties of bear winter shelters from threats of tiger attack during hibernation. Safe were considered lairs, arranged in hollows trees with upper brow, as well as located in niches between stones and in caves, having an entrance, the dimensions of which do not allow the tiger to penetrate the chamber. The previously published information on the relationship between bears and tigers in the Primorsky and Khabarovsk Territories; the interrogative material is used, file and the Annals of Nature of the Sikhote-Alin Biosphere Reserve for 1954-2003. RESULTS Visits of tiger victims to bears Traces of stay of bears on victims of tigers were found 36 times, which is 16.7% of all the surveyed victims during the extra-medical period. The real share of tiger victims, visited by bears, apparently, higher than the data we received, since we failed To trace all the victims before they are completely disposed of by saprophages. Brown bears visited tiger-killed animals 6.7 times more often than the Himalayan animals - without taking into account the bears, the species which was not determined (Table 19.1).
Page 3
3 Table 19.1. Visiting tiger victims by bears in the Sikhote-Alin Reserve and its surroundings in 1992-2003 during the extra-abled period (n = 215) Kind of a bear Number of visits % of visits Brown bear 20 55.6 Himalayan bear 3 8.3 View not defined 13 36.1 Both types 36 100 The earliest date for detecting traces of a bear's presence on a tiger victim in our The research was on March 17 (the form of the bear was not determined). For a brown bear this term It is defined as March 25, and for Himalayan - April 30. In the beginning of April 2001, having drunk 21 km paths of three males of brown bears, we found three tiger sacrifices, dug up and eaten bears in the last few days. All three wapiti were killed by tigers in the winter. Most The late visit of a tiger victim, determined by us, dates back to the brown bear 16 November. In autumn, the percentage of visits for two species of bears was lower than in spring (χ 2 = 8.7, df = 1; p = 0.003) and in summer (χ 2 = 10.5, df = 1, p = 0.012). Among the tiger victims we found, visited by bears, prevailed red deer, but there were also wild boars, roe deer, badgers and moose (Table 19.2). Of the three authentically known cases with the Himalayan bear all the victims were wapiti. Table 19.2. Species composition of tiger victims visited by bears in the Sikhote-Alin Reserve and its surroundings in 1992-2003, and their ratio Two kinds bears Brown bear Himalayan bear The species does not bear is defined View victims n % n % n % n % Izuber 24 66.7 15 41.7 3 8.3 6th 16.7 Boar 6th 16.7 3 8.3 0 0 3 8.3 Badger 2 5.6 0 0 0 0 2 5.6 Roe 3 8.3 1 2.8 0 0 2 5.6 Elk 1 2.8 1 2.8 0 0 0 0 Bears visited tiger victims as after leaving the tiger-master, and during finding the tiger from the victim. In 15 cases (41.7%) out of 36 bears were on the victims no later than on the day after the victim left the tiger; in 13 cases (36.1%) - within five days after the departure of the owner. In four cases (11.4%), bears found snow under snow tiger victims in the spring (once in March and three times in April). In four cases it was evident, that tigers almost completely ate the wapiti, and in these cases brown bears lingered on extraction not more than a day. As to how the tiger's victim got to the bear, the most typical The situation in which bears fed on the remains of tiger prey after the tiger left it. 44.4% of such cases were recorded for bears of both species and 55% for brown bears (Table 19.3). In at least four cases (11.1%), bears drove tigers, catching them on victim. Of these, in two cases, brown bears selected prey (wapiti and wild boar) in adults tigress. In one case, a bear of an unknown species selected a wild boar from a tigress. And yet in One case, similar to the tigress Neli (F37) with cubs, took away the prey Himalayan bear. In the last case, it is known that at the end of April, on the day of the murder of the tiger with the tiger, The bear's bellowing was heard repeatedly. The next day the tigress was far from its victim (installed by radio tracking), when, approaching the wapiti, they frightened him Himalayan bear. The victim still had 65% of the meat. In the near future, tigers to the victim did not return, and the Himalayan bear returned, and it was caught. He was 8-10-year-old male in a physiologically good condition, blind to the right eye. It is noteworthy that in All four cases of bears took away prey from four different adult tigresses (all tigresses were equipped with radio transmitters).
Page 4
4 Table 19.3. The nature of the relationship bears with tigers on the victims of tigers in the Sikhote-Alin reserve and its environs in 1992-2003. After eating care tiger I took the victim in the tiger Deliles extraction from tiger Unknown Kind of a bear n % n % n % n % Both types 16 44.4 4 11.1 4 11.1 12 33.3 Brown bear eleven 55 2 10 4 20 3 15 Himalayan bear 2 66.7 1 33.3 0 0 0 0 The species does not bear is defined 3 23.1 1 7.7 0 0 9 69.2 We have noted four cases in which the victim of a tiger had traces of a simultaneous stay of a tiger and a bear (Table 19.3). In such relationships in all cases entered brown bears and female tigers (3 radiolabels: F15, F21 and F35). In one case, predators shared a wild boar, in three others - a wapiti. In four cases out of 36 bears, victims of tigers or their remains of forest litter, earth and branches. In two cases, brown bears instilled in tigers victims (boar and wapiti), in one case a bear of an unknown species buried the tiger's prey (wapiti) after the owner left it, and in another case the bear was buried killed by a tiger roe deer (more detailed circumstances are not known). Bears dragged the victim after the tiger, at least five times: twice brown a bear (25 m red deer and more than 50 m red deers), twice a bear, the species of which was not is defined (wild boar at 50 m and red deer more than 100 m), and once - Himalayan bear (remnants of red deer at 50 m). In some cases it was not possible to detect large parts of the victim's body, which can be the result of their being dragged by bear over considerable distances. AT In one case, a tigress (F3), who had crushed the wapiti, went to the lair of cubs, and when she returned, discovered that her prey was visited by a brown bear. She dragged the prey by 200 m and crossed with the road. Another time, the tiger dragged the wapiti up to 90 m after the stay on it a Himalayan bear and people. Bears, both brown and Himalayan, after leaving victims of the tiger did not always carry her remains, and often used the same feeding areas and lezhki for rest, which used a tiger. Stay tiger and bear on carcasses that are not victims of tigers In the Sikhote-Alin Reserve in the spring of 2001, a poorly-fat radio-tagged male The tiger found and ate a brown bear killed by another brown bear. Stay tiger and bear is possible on the carcass of an animal that is not a victim one of them. In October 1999, in the Terneysky District of Primorsky Krai, a brown bear found he dug a wapiti killed by poachers. After this carcass, the male tiger (M20) was fed. Apparently, he took the wapiti from the bear, although there were no signs of confrontation. The importance of bears in feeding tigers Analysis of tiger victims showed that bears of both species make up 2.1% in annual diet tigers, 1.4% of them are brown bear and 0.7% are Himalayan (Figure 19.1, Table 19.4). In the period beyond the time of the bears, these figures increase correspondingly to 3.7; 2.8 and 0.9%. Of the 6 tigers of brown bears, five were females, in one case the sex was not determined. Among the dead Himalayan bears there were 2 males and one beast with an undetermined gender. Besides A young Himalayan bear with an indefinite sex and a brown bear (the floor is also not is defined), other bears were adults. There were no reliable cases when bears were mined by tigresses. Six times, the bears were killed by adult male tigers (4 times brown and 2 times Himalayan) and 3 the sex of tigers was unknown. Five bears out of nine (4 brown and 1 Himalayan) were extracted by one tiger, adult resident male Dima (M20). In determining the species belonging to the components in the tiger's excrement, The following results were obtained: bears made 7.1% of the annual diet of the tiger, in
Page 5
5 including 5.2% of Himalayan bear and 1% of brown bear (Fig. 19.1, Table 19.4). Even greater importance in feeding of the tiger, according to these calculations, bears had an extra-illiterate period - 11.4% (8.3% Himalayan and 1.3% brown). In the spring, the bearish components were 4.9% of the content excrement (the earliest excrement with bear fur is dated March 13), in the summer - 11.5%, and in the fall - 20.4%. 2.1 1.4 0.7 0 7.1 1 5.2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6th 7th 8 Bears of two species Brown bear Himalayan bear Kind of a bear indefined % at pi in the at about m rac ion ti gr a tiger victims excrement of a tiger Fig. 19.1. The share of bears in the food of tigers in the Sikhote-Alin Reserve and its environs in 1992-2003, calculated using two methods: victim analysis and analysis of excrement tigers Table 19.4. The share of bears as victims in the annual ration of the tiger in the Primorsky and Khabarovsk Territories Area and period of observations, message source Two kinds bears,% Brown bear,% Himalayan bear,% The species does not bear is defined,% Based on the analysis of tiger victims Primorye Territory, 1958-1987, n = 690 (Abramov and others, 1978) 7.3 - - 7.3 Lazovsky Reserve, 1973-1979, n = 133 (Zhivotchenko, 1981) 1.5 0 1.5 0 Khabarovsk and Primorsky Krai, the years are not are indicated, n = 131 (Kucherenko, 1985) 6th - - 6th Sikhote-Alin Reserve, 1962-1989, n = 292 (Smirnov, 1991) 2.4 - - 2.4 Sikhote-Alin Reserve and surroundings, 1992-2003, n = 427 (present communication) 2.1 1.4 0.7 0 Based on the analysis of excrement of tigers Lazovsky Reserve, 1973-1979, n = 203 (Zhivotchenko, 1981) 1.5 0 1.5 0 Lazovsky Reserve, 1980-1990, n = 30 (Khramtsov, 1993) 16.7 0 16.7 0 Bolshe-Khekhtsirsky Reserve, 1992-1995, n = 27 (Tkachenko, 1996) 37.0 18.5 14.8 3.7 Sikhote-Alin Reserve, 1962-1989, n = 373 (Smirnov, 1991) 6.4 6.4 Sikhote-Alin Reserve and surroundings, 1992-2003, n = 308 (present communication) 7.1 1 5.2 1 Extraction and eating tigers bears ; protective properties of the lair In four cases, when tigers attacked brown bears (in all cases, they were adult female bears) managed to establish the degree of confrontation predators. Twice The signs of the struggle were insignificant and the tigers quickly killed the bear. In the other two The struggle was longer and ended with the death of the bears. In July 1997, in basin of the river. The wetted adult male tiger (M20), attacking the bear, fought with it, in
Page 6
6th As a result, in the forest area of 10 × 2 m the soil was loosened and most of the shrubs. In this place there were a lot of shreds of bear fur, but there was also a tiger's coat. All The battle zone with blood-spattered earth and trees had a length of 30 m. In the other case (12 August 2001), a tiger, after harassment on a slope, attacked a bear of 8-10 years of age weighing 150-200 kg. Beasts several meters rolled down clinging. Knocked out on the spot site 10 × 8 m. After the victory, the tiger departed by 15 m to the side, where he lay down. Him bleeding wound. Presumably, the bear had cubs, which managed to escape. As for the mortality of young bears of brown bears from tigers, we know only one happening. The male tiger on June 18, 1996 killed a bear cub, a gray-haired, trapped in a trap Aldrich on the animal path. Tigers were frightened off by people no later than an hour after the beginning of eating victim. All this time the bear with the second bear was sitting on a tree above the place of violence. Discovered bears - victims of tigers - were disposed of by predators at least than for 2-3 days. In four cases it was known how long it took the tigers to full utilization of bears: 2-3 days left for a young Himalayan bear, 3-4 and 4 - for brown and 5 - on an adult Himalayan bear. In another case, the tiger was frightened off the fifth day, by this time he ate 70% of the brown bear's meat, the live weight of which was 150-200 kg. All 12 of the dens of brown bears surveyed by us were potentially available for the tiger. Of the 32 denominations of radiolabeled Himalayan bears, most (56%) were inaccessible to tigers. These loggers included hollows in trees with an entrance to a large height (n = 15) or having an entrance in the butt, but continuing up the tree (n = 1), and niches in stones having a narrow entrance (n = 1) or narrow long arms (n = 1). Other 14 lairs (44%) were potentially available to tigers. Among them were lairs in the form of a ground nest (n = 6) located in a lump of trees with an entrance from the bottom (n = 5), in niches between stones or in rock (n = 2) and in the old den of the brown bear (n = 1). None of the wintered in the described lairs brown or Himalayan bear was not is extracted by a tiger. However, on December 5, 1998, a tiger (M 20) produced, next to the mammal's adult male Himalayan bear. It seems that during the attack the bear slept still weakly and temporarily came out of the den. The bear tried to escape on the poplar, but the tiger, having jumped for a bear on a tree, Sneaked it. Tiger dragged the bear to 40 meters and ate it for 5 days. In 2002, in the Sikhote-Alin Reserve, we established a case where in May a tiger discovered the den of the Himalayan bear, which was inside with the newborns cubs (Seryodkin et al., 2003). It was located in a niche under a large stone on the edge placers. The entrance height of 35 cm and a width of 41 cm was limited to stones. The tiger could not penetrate Inside the lair because of the size of the chela, arranged a lezhku at the entrance and was on it for at least a day. Follow the bears on tiger tracks When we trail we tigress on March 29, 2001 in the basin of the river. Wetted for one daily course, two approaches of different individuals of the brown bear to its tracks were noted. One of the bears did not react to the trace of the tigress and passed, the other became relentless follow her. Follow the tiger bears can in the snowless period. In August 1994 in the Sikhote- Alinsky Reserve radio-labeled large adult male brown bear twice was in close proximity to a tigress with two cubs (one of them was equipped with a radio transmitter, M18). The interval between two consecutive locations was 6 days, and the distance - 19 km. Joint use of marking trees by tigers and bears On most of the routes that we covered along the trails in the Sikhote-Alin Reserve, dominated by marking trees with joint traces of tagging tigers and bears (50.1%; n = 641). On a five-kilometer section of the animal path along the Khanova key from 65 marked trees There were 42 (64.6%), the remaining 35.4% of the trees had only tiger marks or only bear. For 2 km the trails along the floodplain of the river. Kunaleyka 2/3 marking trees were joint (n = 12).
Page 7
7th Larch Kayandera, white fir, birch flat-leaved, fir ayan, birch Ribbed and Korean pine (cedar) more often than other trees were marked as a tiger, and bears. Specific trees of these breeds were used by predators especially often and intensively. These markers were usually attended by the entire complex of marks applied by the tigers and bears on the trees. Brown bears have labeled trees much more often than Himalayan trees. The Himalayan bear that we tread in March approached the inclined birch, which had a urine tiger. The bear sat under the tree and studied the label. Himself this tree he is tagging did not become, although shortly before that he rubbed the marking tree without a tiger's mark, but had fresh chalices of a brown bear. DISCUSSION Visits of tiger victims to bears Both brown and Himalayan bears visit tiger victims for their disposal (Gorokhov, 1973; Matyushkin, 1974; Kostoglod, 1981; Khramtsov, Zhivotchenko, 1981; Pikunov, 1991; Khramtsov, 1997). Visiting the victims of tigers, bears can perform in the role of commensals, if they Use food remnants after the departure of the host, or spongers in the event of eating prey tigers before they voluntarily left the remnants of the victim. Tiger victims are visited during the wakefulness of bears in all seasons. D.G. Pikunov (1991) cites the fact that the Himalayan bear visited tiger prey (red deer) 21 March, right after leaving the den. A lower percentage of visits in the fall compared with spring and summer, perhaps due to the presence in the autumn of high-calorie feeds Plant origin, having for bears nizhirovochnoe value. Those in Sikhote-Aline are Korean pine nuts, Mongolian oak acorns and cranberries berries (Bromley, 1965, Seryodkin et al., 2002b). In the spring, bears have the opportunity to find a tiger victim, following in the footsteps of a predator, left in the snow, so the likelihood of visiting is increasing. In addition, over the winter A number of victims of tigers, not completely devoured by predators, are accumulating scavengers, not hibernating for the winter. Bear has access to data reserves of food only after leaving the den. In the spring of 1984 in the tract Abrek Sikhote- Alinsky Reserve O.Yu. Two (two) boars were found in the za sense (personal communication) eaten by the Himalayan bear. These animals were killed, but not eaten by a tiger in February. Similar spring activity of bears in relation to victims of wolves describes for Molo-Sheksna interfluve Yu.N. Vishnevsky (1991). Probability of detection of a victim summer increases due to higher temperatures at this time of year compared to others. Than warmer, the animals more often find baits, which contributes to the spread of odor for longer distances (Korytin, 1998). Bears can visit tiger victims also in the winter season. This is due to the fact that Some individuals of both brown and Himalayan bears (mainly males) can lie in The lair in December or January, and to renew wakefulness in February. Separate bears can not lie in the lairs and lead an active lifestyle throughout the winter. Of the six the period of winter trail VE Kostoglod (1981) eating brown bear-rod in Sikhote- Алине три были остатками жертв тигров. Вид жертвы, видимо, не имеет для медведей значения, так как они поедали всех обнаруженных животных. А.И. Мысленков (Сихотэ-Алинский заповедник) по следам наблюдал, что медведь доедал за тигром остатки горала в урочище Абрек в апреле 1986 г. Вид медведя не был установлен. Медведи съедают добычу практически целиком, вплоть до крупных костей, которые не едят тигры. Тигры часто оставляют скелет, шкуру, целую голову, мясо на нижних частях конечностей и шее (Kerley et al., 2002). Медведи от крупного животного чаще всего оставляют частично разгрызенные кости конечностей, верхние и нижние челюсти, часть позвонков; иногда кости таза, лопатки и рёбра. При нехватке кормов, особенно ранней весной, медведи утилизируют тушу более полно. Медведь-шатун съедает животных полностью, включая все кости (Костоглод,
Page 8
8 1976). The length of the bear's stay on a tiger victim depends on the degree of its use of a tiger. The researcher is extremely difficult to understand what part of the victim the tiger ate, and what - a bear, when it was visited by both predators. Of the 24 cases where we knew how the tiger's prey got to the bear, in 8 cases the tigers did not use the carcass completely themselves. Bears took the victim or shared it with tiger, and this is every third victim that the bear visited. Such relations should lead to an increase in the annual number of victims of tigers. In areas with low density This circumstance can be reflected more sharply on tigers. In all known to us cases of their prey to bears were inferior to female tigers, the lack of feed for which may have a negative impact on reproductive ability, as well as on survival young growth. Special attention should be paid to the cases of simultaneous stay of a bear and a tiger victims of the latter. The fact of such a relationship between a brown bear and a wolf in Byelorussia, when both predators during the night alternately went to feed the corpse of a drowned elk (Lavov, 1993). The tolerant attitude of bears and wolves while simultaneously finding them The victims were also noted in Alaska (Murie, 1944, Lent, 1964). Collisions of bears with tigers on the victims of the latter occur when the tiger protects A prey for a bear, or when a tiger catches a bear, returning to its remnants (Gorokhov, 1973, Kostoglod, 1976, Khramtsov, Zhivotchenko, 1981). The outcome of the collisions is different. V.E. Kostoglod (1976) was able to trace the skirmish of the male brown bear-rods with a tiger who came again to his prey. The bear probably slept in half-eaten carcasses red deer, killed on the eve of a tiger, when he calmly approached his prey by 15 Finding a tiger nearby, the bear rushed to meet him. Tiger made five major jumping aside, turned around and stood for a while, imprinting on the snow the blows of the tail. The bear also stopped at 15 m from the enemy, leaning his front paws on the snowy dead wood. After standing in such poses, the beasts dispersed. The bear stayed with the tiger prey. In a different In the case, according to GF Gorokhov (1973), a tiger after a 20-minute fight killed a brown a bear, which he found on the deer he killed. In the Lazovsky Reserve, a tiger killed Himalayan bear, who dragged the carcass of tiger prey in parts (Khramtsov, Zhivotchenko, 1981). We have twice found in the trees traces of quick scrambling of bears (the species of bear in both cases was not determined) near tiger victims. Perhaps so bears fleeing from the tigers who returned to the prey. GF Gorokhov (1973) reports a brown bear, who attacked the tiger, robbing him of a wild boar. The burial of tiger-killed animals is characteristic of the brown bears Sikhote-Alin (Matyushkin, 1974). Apparently, the act of instilling provides, first of all, Preservation of the victim from other predators and scavengers (Pazhetov, 1990). In addition, this promotes a more rapid pace of enzymatic processes that convert fresh meat into "Ripe", that is, more attractive for a bear (Korytin, 1998). According to our observations, bears are more often buried by more complete animal carcasses than their remains, and Amur tigers do not commit such burials at all. Dragging a victim by animals can also be seen as a manifestation of concern for its safety (Pažetnov, 1990), Similar behavior is manifested in predators in the detection of foreign prey. There are facts when tiger victims were fed brown bears together with bear cubs. We have noted one such case. Another example is known from the publication of GF Gorokhov (1973). Interest is caused by the reporters of the Sikhote-Alinsky foresters The reserve of G. Zheleznyakov and G. Zarapin, who assert that on April 9, 1972, on the river. Sitsa the corpse of the wapiti extracted by the tiger attracted three bears: two Himalayan and one brown (Matyushkin, 1974). In addition to tiger victims, brown and Himalayan bears can visit the remains of animals, (Kostoglod, 1981; Zhiryakov, Baidavletov, 2003), a leopard (Pikunov, Korkishko, 1992), the wolf (Kudaktin, 1991; Loskutov et al., 1993; Sobansky, Zavatsky, 1993) and the Harz (Zaitsev, 1991).
Page 9
9 Stay tiger on bear victims In addition to visiting tiger victims by bears, the reverse option is possible. In October 1959 in the upper reaches of the Right Podhorenok (Basin of the Ussuri River), a bear killed an adult tigress, attacking her at the moment when she ate the wild boar she had extracted (Rakov, 1965). Feeding tigers on the carcasses of animals that are not their own prey, presumably, may be due to a lack of sufficient potential victims or poor physiological condition of the predator. Confirmation of the latter assumption is the fact that we recorded eating a tiger having a bad fatness, carcasses of a brown bear killed by another brown bear. The importance of bears in feeding tigers Bears in the food of tigers are of great importance, second only to the deer and the wild boar. Among the brown bears killed by tigers were only females and bear cubs, but there were no adult males. The sex of Himalayan bears, mined by tigers, apparently did not have values for tigers. The presence of the bear cubs makes them more accessible to tigers, because, protecting their offspring, females are exposed to increased danger. Some tigers seem to prefer to eat bears (for example, M20), However, only adult males capable of confronting bears. From the literature, only two cases are known, when brown bears were extracted by females tigers (Kaplanov, 1948, Bromley, 1965). Tigers are more likely to eat bears in the fall, perhaps because they are noisy feeding on dry forest litter and devoured by eating fodder (oak acorns Mongolian and Korean pine nuts), the bear is easier to detect than in other seasons, and it is also easier for him to sneak up and get it. When we determine the proportion of the Himalayan bear in the tiger diet in two ways there was a significant difference (Fig. 19.1). This share was 7.4 times higher in the analysis excrement than in the analysis of victims. Such a big difference, perhaps, is associated with different shares participation of radio-tagged tigers in the collections of their victims and excrement. During the extra-medical period with using radio tracking, 79.5% of victims and 52.9% of tiger's excrement were found. AT As a result, with the first method of collecting information, this method was of greater importance. Different The results for the Himalayan bear could have been caused by a number of reasons: The Himalayan bear is a smaller prey than the brown bear or the wapiti. Not all Tigers killed by Himalayan bears, especially young ones, could be detected because of short-term stay of tagged tigers on them. V.S. Khramtsov (1993) reports that tigers more often young Himalayan bears are mined. For tagged tiger females, more complete observations were made than for males. Females owned 78% of the victims and only 61% of the excrement during the extra-medical period (in cases where the sex of the tiger was determined). According to our research, tigers bears, were males or their sex could not be determined. Thus, the share of Himalayan bear in the tiger's victims should be higher than in our studies, affected in greater degree of females than males. Radiotelemetric studies were mainly concentrated in secondary oak forests, where the density of Himalayan bears in comparison with coniferous-broadleaved forests below. As a result, 77.5% of the victims (non-abortion period) were found in secondary forests and only 22.5% - in coniferous-broad-leaved forests, and excrement finds were 58% and 42 % respectively. In addition, the tiger makes significant movements and its excrement could be found in an oak forest, while their contents were eaten in a coniferous forest. Some role could play a subjective factor. Researchers could not describe excrement of tiger with components of ungulates and more often recorded excrement with bear components, because they were considered less common. The use of two different methods has shown that the share of the Himalayan bear is 0.7-5.2% of the annual diet of the tiger. The method, based on an analysis of the victims of the tiger, Underestimates the proportion of Himalayan bears in the diet of the tiger. As can be seen from other studies (Table 19.4), this share can vary widely depending on local conditions and reach
Page 10
10 in some cases 37% (Khramtsov, 1993; Tkachenko, 1996). According to the calculations of S.P. Kucherenko (1974), in the Priamurye victims of the tiger annually becomes 2-2.5% of the total number of Himalayan bears. There is an opinion that the share of bears in the ration of the tiger increases during the decline the number of its main victims - ungulates (Bromley, 1965, Rukovsky, 1968, Khramtsov, Zhivotchenko, 1983). According to S.P. Kucherenko (1977), the Amur tiger produces an average of three bears of two species per year and confiscates throughout the range 3-4% of the populations of autumn livestock bears. He notes that the weight fraction of bears in the composition of tiger fodder reaches 12% and it higher than the frequency of their occurrence, since the average bear outnumbered other victims predator. Similar calculations are given by E.N. Smirnov (1991), in whose studies the weight the indicator of the occurrence of bears' remnants in collections is 1.7 times higher than the quantitative one. Tiger in within its range in the Far East is the main natural enemy of bears. By the opinion of V.G. Yudina (1996), tigers are not the leading factor in limiting the number bears, but can affect bear populations when they are in critical condition. The aggression of the tiger in relation to the bears is beneficial to the populations of the tigers, since contributes to the "culling" of the weakest individuals (Kostoglod, 1977). Bears are also present in the feeding of the Bengal tiger in India, where the victim is a bear-sponge ( Melursus ursinus )(Schaller, 1967). Extraction and eating tigers bears, the protective properties of the lair One way to hunt tigers for bears is to harvest them during the period winter shelters. In this way, tigers are mined as brown bears (Kaplanov, 1948; Bromley, 1965), and the Himalayan bears (Gorokhov, 1973; Khramtsov, Zhivotchenko, 1981; Yudakov, Nikolaev, 1987; Seryodkin et al., 2003). G.F. Bromley (1965) points out that cases attacks of tigers on bears sleeping in dens on the slopes of the middle Sikhote-Alin, in 1952, 1959 registered more than 15, mainly in early spring and late spring time. AT The overwhelming majority were brown bears. The author notices that the tiger does not always succeed kill the brown bear. The largest bears escape from the claws of a predator and, being expelled from the den, become rods. Valuable observations, which are described by traces on the snow hunting tigresses on brown bears in a den on February 15, 1940 in Sikhote- Alinsky Reserve, are contained in the message of L.G. Kaplanov (1948): "Coming to the ridge, The tigress at right angles to the direction of its turn turned left under the slope and shallow in steps, stealthily, went to the cedar standing at 50 m from the ridge, under which there was a lair. The burloga is shallow, earthy, with one hole to the north. Further things happened, apparently, like this: The tigress digged a hole from the opposite side of the den and frightened the bear in it, alternately jumping then to the brow of the den, then to the excavated hole. Seizing the moment, she with a paw hit, grabbed the bear by one of her front paws, pulled it out, and apparently, Quickly and without fuss, she ate into the cervical vertebrae at the back of her neck. Dipper tigress sneaked a little down and ate it all in a few days. Bear cubs at the age of 1 year, weighing 30 kg, apparently, were strangled right in the den (Skulls skipped), as the walls and ceiling were spattered with blood; The bear cubs were warmed down, about thirty meters, where they were laid intact under the Christmas tree ". Discovering a sleeping bear, tigers do not always dare at them attack. In the Pogranichny district, this fact was noted: the tiger (female) stepped back without trying hunt, from the den of a large brown bear-male. Tiger, seeing the sleeper in the den open type of a bear for 25 m, turned sharply and left its trail back (Yudakov, Nikolaev, 1987). Preferred brown bears Sikhote-Alin lords of soil type (Bromley, 1965; Yudin, 1993a; Seryodkin et al., 2003) are available in their device for tigers, but they are usually located on steep slopes, at an altitude of 775 m above sea level (Seryodkin et al., 2003) with relatively high snow cover height, that is, in places where The presence of tigers in winter is unlikely. Apparently, the position of the lair in hard-to-reach places is the main protective mechanism that protects brown bears from their main enemies in winter period: tiger and human. Himalayan bears, arranged for the winter in tree hollows, are inaccessible to tigers, if the entrance to the den is not located in the base part. But a part of bears (22% in Sikhote-Alinsky reserve) prefers to winter openly in a small depression (Seryodkin et al., 2003).
Page 11
eleven Such lairs are not completely protected from tigers and other enemies of the Himalayan bear. Wintering of Himalayan bears on the ground should adversely affect the reproductive opportunities, increasing their accessibility, since predators in the first turn find females with young ones (Abramov, 1972a). In the southern regions of Primorsky Krai, a also in places where the faunal trees suitable for the laying of animals are spoiled as a result of forest felling, forest fires and spoilage in the process of mining bears from them, the share of terrestrial The den is higher (Abramov, 1972a, Abramov, Pikunov, 1976; Yudin, 1993a). Accordingly, below them Protective properties, including the threat of a tiger attack. Cases of extraction by tigers are known Himalayan bears in the ground lairs, which were placed under the komlya (Yudakov, Nikolaev, 1987) and in the basal hollow (Gorokhov, 1973). V.S. Khramtsov and V.I. Zhivotchenko (1981) reported that Himalayan bears, hibernating in rocky lairs, easily accessible to the tiger. In dens located in crevices of rocks or niches between stones, the protective properties depend on the size of the entrance to the den, or the presence of additional narrow chambers inside. The small size of the entrance and the rapports do not allow the tiger to squeeze into bear and get it. Most of the bears tigers are mined during their wakefulness. With larger and strong, unlike Himalayan, brown bears, tigers often enter into confrontation. Not always tigers manage to overcome the brown bears. V.E. Bonebreaker (1981) The case of an unsuccessful attempt to hunt a tigress with two grown cubs is described. Tigress rushed to the bear, when he ascended the almost steep steep bank of the river. Bear turned and jumped over the riverbed. He quickly climbed the steep bank of the other side the river to its upper third, where it stopped. Wrapping the back of the body between the three small beams, the bear turned to meet the enemy, already standing on a small to the crook of 3 m from it. They shared a small cleft in a steep shore. Beasts stood in such poses, apparently, quite a long time, because under the bear formed an ice crust. One of the cubs first rushed to pursue the bear after the tigress, but then fell behind. Tigress did not dare in this situation, attack the bear. In another situation, a tigress rushed to a brown bear, but after a short fight jumped from a three-meter cliff of the river on which they fought, and quietly left (Gorokhov, 1973). G.F. Gorokhov (1973) writes about one more fight, in which was not the winner. Tiger, noticing the bear, going to meet him, lay down behind the vyvorotnem. By letting the bear closer, he caught up with him from the second jump. The bear took the fight. Beasts for a long time fought, and both parted with blood. The tiger, after the clash, bleated with blood. Brown bear is able not only to provide worthy resistance to the tiger who attacked him, but also to withdraw from scramble winner. It is known that out of 44 cases of a tiger colliding with a brown bear (Kaplanov, 1948; Sysoev, 1950; Sysoev, 1960; Abramov, 1962; Bromley, 1965; Rakov, 1970; Kucherenko, 1972; Gorokhov, 1973; Kostoglod, 1981; Khramtsov, 1993; our data) the tiger was initiator 12, bear - 8 times, in other cases, the attacker was not installed. 50 % cases ended in the death of a bear, 27.3% with the death of a tiger and in 22.7% of cases the beasts dispersed. Himalayan bears in comparison with brown bear less resistance when attack of tigers (Gorokhov, 1973). However, V.P. Sysoev (1960) reports on the long the struggle of these two predators. The Tiger hunts the Himalayan bears with a hide, attacks random encounters (Gorokhov, 1973). Happily, hunting ends usually in small forests, on glades and in other places, deprived of large trees, on which the bear often finds salvation (Kucherenko, 1974), and also at rapprochement, when the bear does not have time to jump on tree. Often tiger bears become young bears (Khramtsov, 1993). From literature There are eight cases where Himalayan bears tried to escape from a tiger on a tree (Bromley, 1956, Gorokhov, 1973; Kucherenko, 1974; Khramtsov, 1983; Khramtsov, 1993; Seryodkin et al., 2003). In six cases, they succeeded. In all cases, the tiger lay under a tree (up to two days), guard potential victim, but the bear waited this time upstairs. One of the bears, escaped from the claws of a tigress with a tattered skin, did not dare to go down for three days, then as the predator has, apparently, retired. Two times the tigers had time to pull the bear out of the tree, and Both times they broke out and were again stopped on the tree, after which they were killed and eaten.
Page 12
12 L.G. Kaplanov (1948) describes the case when a tiger was in a crushed bear not less than 8 days, not departing all this time from the victim. In December 1959 on the river. Light Tiger killed a large brown bear and lived about it for about 10 days, until it was eaten (Rakov, 1965). When full disposal of the bear tiger is left only the head and the bones that have been eaten. In the feces tigers who eat bears, their claws and phalanxes often occur (Khramtsov, 1993; observations). In some cases, a full beast eats only the most fatty parts of the body, leaving a large part of the carcass (Bromley, 1965, Gorokhov, 1973; Tkachenko, 1996). Famous The case when a tiger, fully eating a brown bear, did not touch the strangled two of its cubs (Kaplanov, 1948).
Tiger as an object of feeding bears Cases of eating a tiger by a Himalayan bear were not observed. Nevertheless, it is possible, that bears can feed on carcasses or remains of fallen tigers. Brown bears sometimes attack tigers. There are 12 cases of killing tigers brown bears (Sysoev, 1950; Sysoev, 1960; Abramov, 1962; Rakov, 1970; Gorokhov, 1973; Kostoglod, 1981). six dead tigers were adults, four were tigers, and in two cases age was not indicated by the authors. All tigers were eaten by bears. In the hungry for Beef feed the years of bears become aggressive. For example, in 1960 the brown bear crushed and ate a tiger in the Sikhote-Alin Reserve (Abramov, 1972b). V.E. Kostoglod (1981) describes the case of persistent pursuit of the tiger (width a metatarsal fossa of the front paw of 10.5 cm) with a large brown bear. For more than 14 km the bear followed the tiger unceasingly, straightening the crooks of his trace in some places. Only When the tiger crossed the river bed with numerous traces of people, the bear stopped the pursuit. In another case, the remnants of a tiger eaten by a bear (Kostoglod, 1981). The floodplain of the river was trampled for several kilometers predators. The tiger circled and looped, trying to get away from the pursuit, but was overtaken and torn to pieces by a bear. With a general relatively low number of tigers, the death of individual noticeably affect the state of the population. However, in such battles more likely loss of weakened, including traumatized and old individuals, therefore brown bears can help to eliminate potentially dangerous to humans tigers (Kostoglod, 1981). Predation of the brown bear is one of the causes of the high mortality of cubs. Of the 14 established G.F. Gorokhov (1977), the deaths of tigers (1951-1972), three died from brown bear.
Brown bears can eat the remains of the tigers they found. So it can be explained found in April 2001 in the basin of the river. Serebryanka (Sikhote-Alin Reserve) excreta Brown bear, containing a small amount of tiger fur (our data). Follow the bears on tiger tracks Brown bears, discovering the track of the tiger, react to it differently. The reaction of the bear, apparently, depends on the prescription of the trace; sex, age and physical condition of the bear and tiger, who left traces; season; abundance and availability of feed for the bear; of individual inclinations and experience of the bear. Brown bears can move along tiger tracks to for various reasons: to facilitate movement in deep snow, in order to select the remains abandoned tiger of the victim, in order to capture his victim, as well as for the purpose of persecuting the tiger as a potential victim. The listed reasons can be combined depending on the situation. To facilitate the movement through the snow, bears use a tiger path, if it coincides with the direction of their movement, and drop it if it deviates from their course. AT In this case, it does not matter whether the bear is walking along the tiger the opposite direction. Often bears follow tiger tracks in search of remnants (Kaplanov, 1948, Rakov, 1970; Kostoglod, 1976; Khramtsov, Zhivotchenko, 1981; Dunishenko, 1991; our unpublished data). V.E. Kostoglod (1976) followed the 5 tropes with a brown tiger bear; the longest move along the tiger track, tracked.