[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Mesozoic biomass
Does that also mean that the range of the predators increased by a similar
factor? If I remember correctly, solitary predators like tigers have a range
of around 25 sq miles (sometimes up to 100) while group predators like lions
(and tyrannosaurs?) have ranges of 100 to 200 square miles.
( A quick Google search on "tiger range sq mi" and "lion range sq mi"
reveals that estimates of range vary wildly, with figures as high as 4000
sq. mi reported for lions -- depending on prey density).
So what would the range of a pack of tyrannosaurs have been? Surely at
least 1000 sq mi ... or does it depend entirely on prey density, which in
turn depends on available biomass?
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: Mesozoic biomass
>In essence, it is like the African savannahs with size of predators and
>magnified by a factor of 5-10. So were number of predators & prey 1/5 or
>1/10 of Holocene norms?
I think that would be our best bet. A more precise factor could be
by evaluating whether 1) the Mesozoic ecosystem you're studying was richer
or poorer in plant material than the African savannah and 2) how much
the dinos were as an average.
I fear that extending this mode of thinking to the whole planet would lead
to freakingly approximative calculations. As has already been said, after a
good estimate is known for a few significant ecosystems (could the Morrison
considered as an individual "ecosystem"? Bakker used to consider whole
formations as ecosystems in Dino Heresies, but I fear this is not a very
approach), little more than relative estimations could be done.