RE: Mesozoic biomass

["W. F. Zimmerman, wfzimmerman.com" <wfz@wfzimmerman.com>]

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?

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
FlxLandry@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 6:36 AM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: Mesozoic biomass


Hi!
You wrote:

>In essence, it  is like the African savannahs with size of predators and
prey
>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
estimated 
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
bigger 
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
be  
considered as an individual "ecosystem"? Bakker used to consider whole  
formations as ecosystems in Dino Heresies, but I fear this is not a very
rigorous 
approach), little more than relative estimations could be  done.

Félix