I have closely monitored 9 radio collared tiger over a 4 years time period. I have observed tiger killing leopard (Sympatric Carnivore) many times. But I never came across such incidence.

Hi Yadav, I know we've talked about this before, but just to reiterate: tigers don't have any reason to actively seek and kill jungle cats, either a) for food (jungle cats are way too small for tigers) or because of b) competition (absolutely no overlap in what each prefers). However, that's not to say that a tiger WON'T kill a jungle cat that it happens across. Just that, if it happens, it would be a one-off and not a regular thing.

Sorry to ask you this, but how sure are you that it was tigers that killed the jungle cats? And why?

Lions did kill cheetah in Etosha; the recorded cases were translocated cheetah versus resident lion; in other areas in Namibia, and currently in Etosha, lion and cheetah co-exist; several of the big five carnivore (cheetah & leopard; cheetah & brown hyena) also co-exist;  more so, the presence of one of the five predict (often) the presence of the other.

Hope it helps

It has been seen that Lions will kill hyenas but not eat them. They see them more as pests or vermin.

Whilst I would have thought the same ideology could be present in tigers regarding to smaller cats, I would have thought that without either a) the support of the pride or b) the pressure of needing to be the dominant creature, I cannot imagine why a tiger would a) risk injury in a fight that provides no nutritious gain; or b) feel the need to control against smaller predators that aren't capable of truly competing with the tiger for the majority of prey items.

I would have thought it more likely that your mystery kills occurred as the tiger came across the other predator feeding and decided to steal the kill. The smaller predator may not have given up its prize, leading to a confrontation - rather than the tiger actively sought out the fight. 

However, this is merely postulation - but I hope it helps all the same

Matthew

Thank you Mriganka, Hein, Dev and Mathew for your time to try and address the question. I am still confused with the observation.

Dev: Yes we talked about this. Actually I did a big mistake by not measuring puncture mark on the jungle cat's neck at that time. But since the forest was very small (4 sq km) and we camera trapped with 20 camera traps for one month I am pretty certain that there were no large and medium sized carnivore species that went undetected. We didn't get any evidence of leopard, clouded leopard (anyway, the landscape was too flat and forest unsuitable for it). One option is Jackal which we camera trapped but the wound was very big, I think, for a jackal to have killed it. And another thing is Jackals should have eaten something if they had killed but the carcass was untouched from the perspective of food.

One possible explanation which I think is that the forest was totally gone in the area around 30 years ago due to excessive logging during political upheaval. Rhino and tigers were all lost. It was left as shrubland and grassland. The species like jackals and jungle cats were the topmost carnivores. As the forests grew slowly and started attaining a condition of full growth, the tiger (we came across only one tiger in that small area) started visiting the area again and was trying to stamp his authority (It was a male tiger). While doing this it killed even a jungle cat which came across it, twice.

I am not sure how good this explanation is ecologically but this is what I think. And I also wanted to know if things like this has happened elsewhere or not?

It is always difficult to predict the behaviour of a wild animal. Your explanation may not be heavily documented etc. but it is still more than possible. Whilst I would have thought that a fight with a leopard etc could be too expensive to be justifiable without the reward of immediate food, it is still more than possible that the tiger did this as an example. It would be interesting to see whether the abundance of the other medium sized predators decreases due to removal by the tiger, or due to a migration away from the area. If you see the smaller cats and jackals moving out of the area then I would say that your "public example hypothesis" was a good one

Here is a reference to a study showing the effects of black backed jackals on the behaviour and abundance of smaller canids which maybe of help: Jan F. Kamler, Ute Stenkewitz, and David W. Macdonald (2013) Lethal and sublethal effects of black-backed jackals on cape foxes and bat-eared foxes. Journal of Mammalogy: April 2013, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 295-306. Territoriality is another reason for the killing of a small carnivore by a larger one.

Hi Yadav, 

So what you observed (or inferred from your data)  is that a tiger killed them but did not eat them?

Thank you Toby for the suggestion.. Will look at that paper and see what does it say?

Hi Mathew, nice to get your reaction on my "hypothesis" :). Since the area where I recorded the incident is not the regular area where I work so it is next to impossible for me to monitor if similar incidents occur in future too. It would be really important to see if similar carcass of jackals will be seen or not? Because if we get similar bodies of jackals then I would assume it is tiger which is killing both jungle cat and jackal without eating them. However, if it is only jungle cat then there will be another possibility i.e. Bigger jackals killing these jungle cats.

Hi Maria! I recorded two incidents and in both cases the body was untouched after the jungle cat was killed. I assume it is tiger because jungle cats are not very small cats and the wound on its neck region was very big for a jackal. I did not even worried about noting the details at that time which is making my assumption a little bit uncertain at the moment.

Hi Yadav, I don't really have an explanation. I have seen tigers killing all sort of species, large and small, but they always eat them, at least partially. Have you considered the possibility of another jungle cat killing them? Or the kill wounds were too big to belong to a jungle cat bite? 

Hi Yadav, 

I do think it is an interesting line of thought and I would be interested to see whether the tiger removes the lesser predators, or whether they emigrate the area of their own volition now that they have been usurped of their top predator status. But I would still be on the page that this was due to direct competition over the same carcass, initiated by the tiger - rather than the "public example hypothesis" :)

If you do find a jackal corpse killed in a similar fashion, then I would be thinking it could only be a tiger that has killed it. Principally because most canids are pack hunters and an intruder to a packs territory would not be met by a single member of the pack. Therefore I would expect that the carcass would be relatively torn-apart in the fighting, even if it wasn't eaten. 

Again a jackal (even a bigger one) is not that much bigger than a leopard or even some of the smaller cat family members. I would have thought the potential risk during a battle would be a deterrent. I just can't imagine a small-medium sized predator deciding to risk injury without the direct benefit of food. Difficult one

Maria: I think the wound was much bigger than a jungle cat could make.. 

Matthew: Interesting thought about whether or not we get jackal killed by a tiger.

Let's see,,, I will try to contact the forest guards there. Maybe they have some interesting updates.

Thank you all for your interest and answers :)

In semi-arid South Africa, black back jackals were recorded killing smaller canid species in their home range see: Resource partitioning among cape foxes, bat-eared foxes, and black-backed jackals in South Africa. Kamler et al. 2012 Journal of Wildlife Management.