Document Detail

Intra-guild competition and its implications for one of the biggest terrestrial predators, Tyrannosaurus rex.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  21270037     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
Identifying tradeoffs between hunting and scavenging in an ecological context is important for understanding predatory guilds. In the past century, the feeding strategy of one of the largest and best-known terrestrial carnivores, Tyrannosaurus rex, has been the subject of much debate: was it an active predator or an obligate scavenger? Here we look at the feasibility of an adult T. rex being an obligate scavenger in the environmental conditions of Late Cretaceous North America, given the size distributions of sympatric herbivorous dinosaurs and likely competition with more abundant small-bodied theropods. We predict that nearly 50 per cent of herbivores would have been within a 55-85 kg range, and calculate based on expected encounter rates that carcasses from these individuals would have been quickly consumed by smaller theropods. Larger carcasses would have been very rare and heavily competed for, making them an unreliable food source. The potential carcass search rates of smaller theropods are predicted to be 14-60 times that of an adult T. rex. Our results suggest that T. rex and other extremely large carnivorous dinosaurs would have been unable to compete as obligate scavengers and would have primarily hunted large vertebrate prey, similar to many large mammalian carnivores in modern-day ecosystems.
Authors:
Chris Carbone; Samuel T Turvey; Jon Bielby
Related Documents :
8744707 - A self-medicating applicator for control of ticks on deer.
2997977 - Metabolism and effects of organic compounds in animals.
7706977 - Regulation of porcine skeletal muscle nuclear 3,5,3'-tri-iodothyronine receptor binding...
10681987 - Agroterrorism. agricultural infrastructure vulnerability.
16239007 - Analytical separation of tea catechins and food-related polyphenols by high-speed count...
8744707 - A self-medicating applicator for control of ticks on deer.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2011-01-26
Journal Detail:
Title:  Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society     Volume:  278     ISSN:  1471-2954     ISO Abbreviation:  Proc. Biol. Sci.     Publication Date:  2011 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2011-07-27     Completed Date:  2011-12-05     Revised Date:  2013-06-30    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101245157     Medline TA:  Proc Biol Sci     Country:  England    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  2682-90     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY, UK. chris.carbone@ioz.ac.uk
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Animals
Cannibalism
Competitive Behavior / physiology*
Dinosaurs / physiology*
Ecosystem
Feeding Behavior / physiology*
Herbivory
North America
Predatory Behavior / physiology*
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Proc Biol Sci
Journal ID (publisher-id): RSPB
Journal ID (hwp): royprsb
ISSN: 0962-8452
ISSN: 1471-2954
Publisher: The Royal Society
Article Information
Download PDF
This journal is © 2011 The Royal Society
open-access:
Received Day: 16 Month: 11 Year: 2010
Accepted Day: 22 Month: 12 Year: 2010
Print publication date: Day: 7 Month: 9 Year: 2011
Electronic publication date: Day: 26 Month: 1 Year: 2011
pmc-release publication date: Day: 26 Month: 1 Year: 2011
Volume: 278 Issue: 1718
First Page: 2682 Last Page: 2690
ID: 3136829
PubMed Id: 21270037
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2497
Publisher Id: rspb20102497

Intra-guild competition and its implications for one of the biggest terrestrial predators, Tyrannosaurus rex Alternate Title:Scavenging versus hunting in T. rex
Chris Carbone1*
Samuel T. Turvey1
Jon Bielby12
1Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RY, UK
2Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, Imperial College London, St. Mary's Hospital, Norfolk Place, London W2 1PG, UK
*Author for correspondence (chris.carbone@ioz.ac.uk).

1.  Introduction

Scavenging behaviour is associated with a diverse range of important ecological and behavioural processes including kleptoparasitism [1], disease transmission [2], species distributions [35] and nutrient cycling [6], but despite its importance it remains a poorly understood phenomenon [7]. Most carnivorous species today rely on a combination of hunting and scavenging [7,8], although some groups of species subsist almost exclusively on scavenging [9]. Effective scavengers must possess high movement speeds but low locomotion costs, and the ability to detect carcasses over long distances in order to outcompete other scavengers and predators [10]. These factors explain why vultures are such highly successful obligate scavengers, while sit-and-wait predators (e.g. viperid snakes) are reliant almost exclusively on hunting [7]. However, many physical features that help species scavenge successfully (e.g. powerful build; sharp teeth; fast speed; good vision and sense of smell) are also useful for hunting. As a result, it can be difficult to diagnose feeding strategies of species from their physical characteristics alone, especially for extinct carnivores known only from the fossil record [1113].

In the past century, the feeding strategy of one of the best known and largest terrestrial carnivores, Tyrannosaurus rex, has been the subject of considerable debate and attention (e.g. [1420]). Proposed support for the species being a primary or obligate scavenger includes its disproportionately tiny forelimbs and apparently reduced eyes [16], enlarged olfactory bulbs [21], and large body size and upright stance as a possible adaptation for finding carcasses, although the latter two traits may also have been an advantage for locating live prey [15]. However, enlarged olfactory bulbs may be associated with behaviours unrelated to food acquisition [22,23], and the eyes of T. rex are in fact large in both relative and absolute terms [24]. The binocular vision, bite force and impact-resistant teeth of T. rex suggest instead that it may have been better adapted for an active predatory lifestyle [18,20,25,26].

Nearly all of the debate over the feeding ecology of T. rex has focused on the interpretation of functional morphology rather than on energetic or ecosystem-level considerations. A recent attempt to determine the feasibility of T. rex being an obligate scavenger addressed the energetic costs of movement and the amount of meat available from carcasses [17]. Based on reasonable assumptions of energetic rates, travel speeds and carcass detection ability, this study concluded that T. rex could feasibly have survived as an obligate scavenger, although energetically it might have been a marginal strategy. However, as yet no analyses of the feeding ecology of T. rex have investigated wider patterns of theropod and other dinosaurian diversity in Late Cretaceous faunas [27], in particular, the impacts of competition from other sympatric carnivorous theropods, or the size distribution of carcasses available to potential scavengers of that period.

Most extant carnivore guilds contain a number of competing predatory/scavenging species [28], and the Late Cretaceous North American dinosaur fauna also consisted of several small-bodied non-avian carnivorous theropods in the Tyrannosauridae, Oviraptorosauria (Caenagnathidae), Deinonychosauria (Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae) and Coelurosauria incertae sedis [27]. Although oviraptorosaurs and troodontids may not have been obligate carnivores [29,30], many of these sympatric theropods were largely or completely carnivorous, and there is evidence for both active predation and late-stage carcass consumption (probable scavenging) by dromaeosaurs [31]. In modern-day ecosystems, carcasses are typically a rare, widely dispersed and unpredictable resource, and competition among scavengers is often seen as a form of scramble competition [7]. If the same conditions applied in Late Cretaceous ecosystems, T. rex could have been in competition for resources with a range of different-sized theropods, also including juvenile and sub-adult T. rex individuals, which may have been relatively abundant compared with adults [32]. In our analysis, we focus on Late Cretaceous theropod species weighing 16–20 kg and up to the size of T. rex. Our lower size range was based on evidence from terrestrial mammalian carnivore guilds, because species of this weight range (e.g. wild dogs, jackals, hyenas) are extremely effective hunter/scavengers [8] (table 1). If the smaller, more abundant theropod species and T. rex age classes were therefore also primarily hunters that scavenged opportunistically, this might have placed extreme pressure on the resources available from scavenging in the Late Cretaceous theropod community.

Interpreting patterns of relative abundance is notoriously difficult from the fossil record, due to taphonomic biases typically favouring the preservation of large-bodied species [41]. Skeletons of small-bodied Late Cretaceous dinosaurs are very rare and new species continue to be discovered, whereas the remains of large-bodied dinosaurs typically dominate Late Cretaceous fossil deposits [38,42]. However, even though they are recognized to have a much lower preservation potential, the observed fossil abundance of small putatively carnivorous theropods (dromaeosaurs and troodontids) is similar to that of tyrannosaurids in North American Late Cretaceous deposits [42], and many of these deposits show a relatively high abundance of both small theropods and small herbivorous dinosaurs (hypsilophodontids and pachycephalosaurs) [43]. This suggests that smaller carnivores and herbivores were proportionally much more abundant than tyrannosaurids in Late Cretaceous ecosystems. The abundance of small species within dinosaur guilds would be supplemented by the presence of earlier life stages of larger species. Body mass abundance patterns in fishes, another vertebrate group where individuals are independent before adulthood, are similar to those found in mammals when one considers the overall size classes rather than species weight classes [44]; assumptions about relationships between abundance and size at a faunal level are therefore likely to be robust to changes in the relative abundance of some of the smaller species.

In this paper, we explore the potential competitive ability of T. rex as an obligate scavenger. We take into account the presence of other carnivorous theropod individuals in Late Cretaceous ecosystems, and the estimated spatial distribution of carcasses of different herbivorous dinosaur species that would be available for scavengers. We make the assumption that, by analogy with vertebrate assemblages in modern-day terrestrial ecosystems, many predators are also opportunistic scavengers, so that there are more potential consumers of carcasses than carcasses available for these predatory guilds. We assess the likelihood that adult T. rex could have been an obligate scavenger based on expected carcass encounter rates for this species compared with those for sympatric smaller theropod dinosaurs. We follow Ruxton & Houston [17] in drawing explicitly on modern ecological analogues, by basing our analysis on the production rate of large carcasses estimated from the terrestrial large mammal community of the well-studied modern-day Serengeti ecosystem [9]. We also base our predictions of relative abundance and travel speed on well-established body size abundance and speed relationships found in terrestrial mammals [4547].


2.  Methods

Lists of non-avian dinosaur species that were stratigraphically coeval and geographically sympatric with T. rex and which could potentially act as competitors or prey were collected from records of Late Cretaceous (late Campanian to late Maastrichtian) fossil formations in North America [27]. Only those dinosaur taxa that were positively identified to species or genus level from formations that also contained tyrannosaurid fossils identified as T. rex were categorized in our study as being sympatric; all provisional or tentative species or genus identifications were interpreted as being definite identifications for the purposes of analysis. Body mass estimates for these dinosaurs were obtained from the scientific literature (tables 1 and 2). We exclude the herbivorous ornithomimosaurs [54] from our analyses of carnivorous theropods but include caenagnathid oviraptorosaurs and troodontids, following earlier studies [5557]. Although there may have been minor variations in dinosaur faunal composition across the geographical range of T. rex during the Late Cretaceous (e.g. titanosaurid sauropods were restricted to the southwestern United States [27]), our species list is treated as representing a consistent sympatric faunal unit across this region for the purposes of analysis. A slightly different species list is also available on the Paleobiology Database (http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl). However, as our analysis of theropod performance focuses on a comparison between the largest and smallest theropod size classes (see below), it is robust to such minor changes in faunal composition.

We based our estimates of carcass production on data from the Serengeti ecosystem [17]. We assume that this is a valid ecological comparison, because although ecosystems in the Late Cretaceous may have been more productive and contained more large-bodied species than terrestrial mammalian systems today, they would also be expected to contain a higher abundance of predators, and the fossil record of large-bodied species contains similar predator–prey ratios to those recorded in modern-day ecosystems [58].

Our approach relies on the use of allometric equations to estimate how factors such as abundance and search capacity vary with body mass. Many biological characteristics of animals are related to body mass and can be described with power equations taking the form of Y = a × Mb, where a is a constant, M is mass (kg) and b represents the allometric exponent, which influences the relative change in the value Y with changes in body mass. These equations are commonly used in multi-species studies on the influence of body mass on species characteristics [59].

We assume that population densities of herbivorous and theropod dinosaurs, Nh and Nt (number of individuals km−2), are related to the following power equations:


and

where Mh and Mt are in kilograms, c and e are constants corresponding to the number of 1 kg animals km−2, and d and f are scaling factors.

To estimate the relative numbers of Late Cretaceous herbivorous dinosaurs, we used values of c = 100 and d = −0.75, similar to the values estimated from data on herbivorous mammal abundance [45]. Estimates of carnivorous theropod dinosaur abundances were derived from mammalian carnivore data [47], where e = 1.97 and f = −0.88. For the purposes of illustration, herbivorous and carnivorous dinosaur species, including different age classes of the larger species, were then grouped into seven and four size classes, respectively, corresponding to the natural body size groupings shown by the data (tables 1, 2 and figure 1).

To explore how the presence of sympatric competing theropods affects the likelihood of adult T. rex being an obligate scavenger, we used estimates of carcass encounter rate following the model proposed by Ruxton & Houston [17]. Our approach, however, differs from Ruxton & Houston in that we focus on estimating relative encounter rates of theropod scavengers accounting for size-dependent differences in estimated population density, travel speed and search capacity in relation to the size and likely distribution of available carcasses. Also unlike Ruxton & Houston, we do not explicitly attempt to estimate intake rates of a scavenging T. rex but focus our analysis on the relative search areas of an adult T. rex compared with other competing species and age classes. Following Ruxton & Houston, we assumed that the forager moves along a path where the search area is defined by the speed St (m s−1) and detection distance Dt. Because we also need to estimate how these factors vary with body mass, we used the following allometric equations:


where g and h represent the constant and exponent for speed, respectively, and:

where j and k represent the constant and exponent for detection range, respectively.

In order to explore the potential impact of scavenging on carcasses, we calculated the total potential impact of the populations of different theropod species on carcass feeding by multiplying estimated population sizes by individual search rates (see above).

To estimate the population search rate NAtot (km2 d−1) would be:


which expands to:

The constants e, g and j in this equation do not affect the relative impacts of scavenging by different theropods, but the scaling exponents have a critical influence on these relative values. Therefore, in order to compare these scanning rates we do not need to know the absolute values of the constants, which is useful as we do not have a good understanding of the absolute values of abundance, speed and detection range for any dinosaur species.

We initially chose variables for the constants and exponents to match Ruxton & Houston's [17] predictions for T. rex (table 3, scenario 1), but also used alternative values based on more extreme assumptions about relative differences between theropod species (table 3, scenarios 2–5). In scenario 1, we set the speed constant g = 11.9 and the speed scaling factor h = 0.05. We set the detection range constant j = 0.034 and the detection range scaling factor k = 0.1. These values predict a daily distance for an individual T. rex of 18.3 km and a detection distance of 80 m (approximately the values estimated in [17]), compared with 13.8 km d−1 and a 50 m detection range for a 20 kg theropod. We increased the exponents for the scaling of both speed and/or detection range with mass (scenarios 2–4) to increase the relative speed and detection distance for T. rex. Here we used combinations of values of 0.16 and 0.25 for the speed and detection range scaling factors h and k, respectively (broadly similar to values described in scaling studies on mammals [46,60]; table 3). For the purposes of illustration, we calculated an extreme case (scenario 5) where T. rex performs at the same level as smaller theropod species, with scaling factor values h = 0.35 and k = 0.54.


3.  Results

Based on size–abundance relationships found in modern-day herbivorous mammals [45], we predict that just under 50 per cent of herbivorous carcasses in the T. rex community would have been in the 55–85 kg size range (figure 1). A productive modern-day ecosystem such as the Serengeti generates 4.38 kg of carcasses km−2 d−1 [9]. If we can assume that levels of carcass abundance were similar in Mesozoic terrestrial ecosystems, a substantial number of dinosaur carcasses would therefore have been present in Late Cretaceous North America, enough to sustain an individual adult T. rex. However, it becomes clear that finding these carcasses becomes a problem if we estimate the distributions of different-sized carcasses given this predicted rate of supply. Using the simplified assumption that all size classes of species produce carcasses at the same rate [47], we can easily calculate an expected distribution based on the Serengeti production rate as an even fraction of the number of herbivorous dinosaur size classes. If every carcass lasted 7 days before becoming consumed (or 14 days at 50% of the original body mass), most carcasses would be very widely dispersed indeed: on average there would be just one 75 kg carcass every 17 km2, one 700 kg carcass every 160 km2, and one 5 tonne carcass every 1000 km2, with a 25 tonne carcass every 5000 km2. Clearly, these carcasses would be difficult for individual scavengers to find without travelling great distances.

Based on Ruxton & Houston's calculations [17], we expect an adult T. rex to have covered just under 3 km2 a day (18.3 km daily distance × 2 × 0.08 km detection distance). Using our estimates of carcass distributions described above, we predict that T. rex would have been able to find a 75 kg carcass on average in just under 6 days, and a 700 kg carcass in approximately 55 days; on average, it would have had to search for over a year to find a 5 tonne carcass and five times that to find a 25 ton carcass (figure 2). The potential absence of titanosaurid sauropods, the largest size class of herbivorous dinosaurs, from part of the geographical range of T. rex [27] therefore has little bearing on the availability of carcasses in Late Cretaceous ecosystems.

How might populations of other smaller carnivorous theropod dinosaurs have impacted these carcasses during the time T. rex spent searching for them? Given the much higher predicted relative abundances of smaller theropod species and age classes compared with an adult T. rex, one might expect individuals of these species to have had a considerable effect on the amount of meat supplied by carcasses. In figure 2, we show the average expected numbers of theropod dinosaurs that would arrive at a carcass before an adult T. rex could reach it. The smaller, more abundant species would be expected to take less time to locate and arrive at a carcass. For a 75 kg carcass, we predict that on average five Dromaeosaurus-sized individuals and one Troodon-sized individual would already have arrived first, and would be expected to quickly consume most or all of the carcass. Larger carcasses would have attracted more theropods, and again would probably have been fully consumed before the arrival of T. rex. Overall for the T. rex community, we predict that the smallest carnivorous theropods collectively would have had carcass search rates over 60 times higher than adult T. rex under a model of modest scaling exponents for travel speed and detection range (i.e. small differences between theropods), and between 26–33 times higher given moderate scaling exponents (table 3). Only if we assume extreme scaling exponents, where an adult T. rex travelled over 130 km d−1 and had a detection range of around 3.5 km, could it have had the same search rate as smaller theropod species (table 3). However, even under these extreme and implausible parameters, competition would have been intense across the Late Cretaceous theropod guild. Although we do not show these calculations, if an adult T. rex had been even larger than our body mass estimate and instead nearer to 7 tonnes [34] following alternative estimates, we would expect approximately 30–73-fold lower search rates in this species given conditions in scenarios 1–3.


4.  Discussion

Our results highlight the importance of taking both intraspecific and interspecific competition and the distribution of food resources into account when investigating the ecological viability of alternative carnivore foraging strategies. Ultimately, the nutritional ecology of a carnivore will be determined by the costs and benefits of different available strategies. Most terrestrial mammalian carnivores are primarily hunters, but scavenge opportunistically when carcasses become available [7]. A heavy reliance on scavenging will only be viable if this strategy can provide a reliable source of food. While our analysis does not examine these costs/benefits in relation to hunting at an individual level, we clearly show that given the distribution of carcasses and the potential for competition with other members of the carnivorous theropod guild, it is extremely unlikely that an adult T. rex could use scavenging as a long-term sustainable foraging strategy. The simple reason for this lies in the predicted overwhelming abundance of smaller-bodied competing theropods, with the smallest of these in the 16–25 kg range estimated to represent approximately 80 per cent of individuals in the guild (table 2).

In modern-day carnivore guilds, groups of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus), wolves (Canis lupus) and spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta) weighing 20–60 kg can reduce a 70+ kg carcass to scraps of skin and bone extremely rapidly, certainly in under an hour [61,62]. If similar-sized carnivorous theropods had the same ecological impact in the Late Cretaceous, this would have severely reduced the availability of the most common carcass size available to larger carnivorous species. Although a fully grown T. rex, being such a large carnivore, may have dominated carcasses once it had arrived [63,64], there would have been a limited number of carcasses persisting in the environment to support such a giant obligate scavenger. Even without the impact of small theropods, predicted travel speeds and detection ranges indicate that carcasses would have rotted by the time an adult T. rex was typically able to find them. Furthermore, whereas our analysis has only considered potential dinosaur competitors, T. rex may also have competed with other species such as giant azhdarchid pterosaurs for access to carcasses [12,65], suggesting that Late Cretaceous North America would have been even less likely to support a giant obligate terrestrial scavenger than we have predicted. Decomposers would also have played their part in further reducing the amount of meat available to vertebrate scavengers [7]. In addition, our analyses made the conservative assumption that theropod speed increases with size. Recent studies on theropod locomotion, however, suggest that smaller species may in fact have been faster and more mobile [66,67]. This is consistent with patterns of home range size in modern carnivores, where the largest home ranges are found in the intermediate body size range [68]. If movement rates of smaller species were in fact higher than we have assumed, the difference in search rates would be even more extreme.

The question of whether dinosaurs were endothermic or ectothermic remains one of the great unresolved controversies of palaeontology, and has important implications for reconstructing aspects of dinosaurian trophic ecology such as metabolic requirements and predator : prey ratios [6971]. Our comparison of the search rates of theropod dinosaurs is sensitive to changes in relative abundance, speed of movement and detection distances. While these variables would be affected by metabolic rate, our main conclusions regarding competition between theropods would not be affected by their thermoregulatory status if we assume that all theropods in the T. rex community had similar metabolic rates, a plausible assumption following several lines of evidence (e.g. phylogeny, shared possession of feathers or protofeathers, bipedal stance [27,70]). If theropods were ectotherms, we would expect T. rex to be able to tolerate longer periods of fasting, but we might also expect it to move more slowly and have a lower search rate [17]. We might expect ectothermic theropods to obtain higher densities for a given density of prey/carcasses, but this would also lead to higher levels of competition for each carcass. These tradeoffs therefore suggest that our conclusions about the trophic status of T. rex should hold true whether it was endothermic or ectothermic.

In a wider ecological context, it should not be surprising that a fully grown T. rex cannot be realistically interpreted as an obligate scavenger. Large-bodied theropods (e.g. neoceratosaurs, carnosaurs, megalosaurs, tyrannosauroids) are characteristic members of all well-studied diverse Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaur assemblages, and almost all of these species other than T. rex have been interpreted uncontroversially as active terrestrial predators [24]. The only large-bodied theropods that probably had a markedly different nutritional ecology are the fish-eating spinosaurs, which unlike T. rex have been reconstructed on the basis of several independent lines of evidence (functional morphology, isotope signatures and stomach contents [7274]). Several Jurassic and Cretaceous predator guilds (e.g. Morrison Formation, Bahariya Formation) contained multiple lineages of extremely large sympatric predatory theropods [24,75], for which direct competition for prey must have been mitigated by morphologically or ecologically mediated niche partitioning [56]. In contrast, tyrannosaurids are the only large-bodied theropods in Late Cretaceous North America, with T. rex as the only giant carnivore (see [34] for tyrannosaurid body masses and growth rates). Since the T. rex community also contained a wide range of large-bodied potential prey species, it can be considered extremely unlikely on comparative ecological grounds that this system for some reason lacked a similar theropod ‘super-predator’.

Many extant mammalian carnivores feed in groups, especially in open and highly competitive ecosystems, and recent work on Pleistocene carnivores suggests that sociality may make species more effective at defending scavenged carcasses from competitors [64,76]. If intra-guild competition was similarly high in Late Cretaceous terrestrial ecosystems, we might also expect selection for social grouping behaviour in carnivorous theropods. Interestingly, although reconstructing social behaviour for extinct species in the fossil record is an extremely difficult process, dromaeosaurs have often been interpreted as social carnivores (‘pack hunters’) on the basis of DeinonychusTenontosaurus fossil assemblages [77] (although see [78]), and there is also some taphonomic evidence to suggest gregarious behaviour in the small tyrannosaurid Albertosaurus [79].

What can our analysis tell us about other aspects of the predatory behaviour of T. rex and other extremely large theropods? Clearly, T. rex would have been able to dominate almost all other terrestrial predators at any time or any place. However, given its large mass and the fact that it would have been vastly outnumbered by smaller theropods, it was probably a poor competitor in indirect scramble competition. We have evaluated the potential impact of intra- and interspecific competition between sympatric theropods on scavenging opportunities for T. rex, but similar arguments could also be applied to its ability to find hatchling or juvenile dinosaurs or other sources of food if these had an unpredictable and ephemeral distribution, even though these are sometimes interpreted as possible specialist tyrannosaurid prey items [80]. Given its physical dominance, being one of the largest known theropods [36], T. rex would have been better able to compete for more predictable food resources, and as a large prey specialist it would have had a unique position in its guild at being able to effectively hunt herbivorous dinosaurs that were far larger than would be available to other theropod species. Indeed, although pack hunting may have allowed dromaeosaurs to target larger prey species, taphonomic evidence suggests that small Cretaceous deinonychosaurian theropods probably hunted relatively small-bodied herbivorous dinosaurs such as basal neoceratopsians or hypsilophodontids, or dinosaur hatchlings [31,57,77], rather than the larger hadrosaurs, neoceratopsians or titanosaurs. As an active large prey specialist, feeding on herbivores of similar or greater mass, T. rex would have had feeding habits consistent with prey size selection patterns found in extant mammalian carnivores [81,82]. We propose that this is the most likely feeding strategy for T. rex. Future research into the energetic and behavioural constraints on this extreme giant predator might also help to better understand the evolutionary constraints on carnivory.


Acknowledgements

We thank Marcus Clauss, James Farlow and John R. Hutchinson for their helpful comments on previous versions of the manuscript and thank Tom Kennedy for help with the figures.

C.C. acknowledges funding provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for publishing this manuscript. This is contribution no. 104 of the DFG Research Unit 533 ‘Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: the evolution of gigantism’.


References
1. Fanshawe J. H.,Fitzgibbon C. D.. Year: 1993Factors influencing the hunting success of an African wild dog pack. Anim. Behav.45, 479–49010.1006/anbe.1993.1059 (doi:10.1006/anbe.1993.1059)
2. Butler J. R. A.,Du Toit J. T.. Year: 2002Diet of free-ranging domestic dogs in rural Zimbabwe: implications for wild scavengers on the periphery of wildlife reserves. Anim. Conserv.5, 29–3710.1017/S136794300200104X (doi:10.1017/S136794300200104X)
3. Creel S.. Year: 2001Four factors modifying the effect of competition on carnivore population dynamics as illustrated by African wild dogs. Conserv. Biol.15, 271–274
4. Gorman M. L.,Mills M. G.,Raath J. P.,Speakman J. R.. Year: 1998High hunting costs make African wild dogs vulnerable to kleptoparasitism by hyaenas. Nature391, 479–48110.1038/35131 (doi:10.1038/35131)
5. Mills M. G. L.,Gorman M. L.. Year: 1997Factors affecting the density and distribution of wild dogs in the Kruger National Park. Conserv. Biol.11, 1397–140610.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96252.x (doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1997.96252.x)
6. Selva N.,Fortuna M. A.. Year: 2007The nested structure of a scavenger community. Proc. R. Soc. B274, 1101–110810.1098/rspb.2006.0232 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0232)
7. DeVault T. L.,Rhodes O. E.,Shivik J. A.. Year: 2003Scavenging by vertebrates: behavioral, ecological, and evolutionary perspectives on an important energy transfer pathway in terrestrial ecosystems. Oikos102, 225–23410.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x (doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2003.12378.x)
8. Estes R. D.. Year: 1991The behaviour guide to African mammals: including hoofed mammals, carnivores, primates. Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press
9. Houston D. C.. Year: 1979The adaptations of scavengers. In Serengeti: dynamics of an ecosystem (eds Sinclair A. R. E.,Norton-Griffiths M.), pp. 263–286Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
10. Ruxton G. D.,Houston D. C.. Year: 2004Obligate vertebrate scavengers must be large soaring fliers. J. Theor. Biol.228, 431–43610.1016/j.jtbi.2004.02.005 (doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.02.005)15135041
11. Fariña R. A.,Blanco R. E.. Year: 1996Megatherium, the stabber. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B263, 1725–172910.1098/rspb.1996.0252 (doi:10.1098/rspb.1996.0252)
12. Witton M. P.,Naish D.. Year: 2008A reappraisal of azhdarchid pterosaur functional morphology and paleoecology. PLoS ONE3, e227110.1371/journal.pone.0002271 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002271)18509539
13. Benton M.. Year: 2010Studying function and behavior in the fossil record. PLoS Biol.3, e100032110.1371/journal.pbio.1000321 (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000321)20209139
14. Lambe L. B.. Year: 1917The Cretaceous theropodous dinosaur Gorgosaurus. Memoirs Geol. Survey Canada100, 1–84
15. Farlow J. O.. Year: 1994Speculations about the carrion-locating ability of tyrannosaurs. Hist. Biol.7, 159–16510.1080/10292389409380450 (doi:10.1080/10292389409380450)
16. Horner J. R.. Year: 1994Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of T. rex as a scavenger). Palaeontol. Soc. Special Publ.7, 157–164
17. Ruxton G. D.,Houston D. C.. Year: 2003Could Tyrannosaurus rex have been a scavenger rather than a predator? An energetics approach. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B270, 731–73310.1098/rspb.2002.2279 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2279)
18. Rayfield E. J.. Year: 2004Cranial mechanics and feeding in Tyrannosaurus rex. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B271, 1451–145910.1098/rspb.2004.2755 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2755)
19. Paul G. S.. Year: 2008The extreme lifestyles and habits of the gigantic tyrannosaurid superpredators of the Late Cretaceous of North America and Asia. In Tyrannosaurus rex: the tyrant king (eds Larson P.,Carpenter K.), pp. 307–352Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
20. Erickson G. M.,Van Kirk S. D.,Su J.,Levenston M. E.,Caler W. E.,Carter D. R.. Year: 1996Bite-force estimation for Tyrannosaurus rex from tooth-marked bones. Nature382, 706–70810.1038/382706a0 (doi:10.1038/382706a0)
21. Horner J. R.,Dobb E.. Year: 1997Dinosaur lives: unearthing an evolutionary saga. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace & Company
22. Brochu C. A.. Year: 2000A digitally-rendered endocast for Tyrannosaurus rex. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.20, 1–610.1671/0272-4634(2000)020[0001:ADREFT]2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2000)020[0001:ADREFT]2.0.CO;2)
23. Zelenitsky D. K.,Therrien F.,Kobayashi Y.. Year: 2009Olfactory acuity in theropods: palaeobiological and evolutionary implications. Proc. R. Soc. B276, 667–67310.1098/rspb.2008.1075 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1075)
24. Farlow J. O.,Holtz T. R. J.. Year: 2002The fossil record of predation in dinosaurs. Paleontol. Society Papers8, 251–265
25. Meers M. B.. Year: 2002Maximum bite force and prey size of Tyrannosaurus rex and their relationship to the inference of feeding behaviour. Hist. Biol.16, 1–12
26. Stephens P. A.,Zaumyslova O. Y.,Miquelle D. G.,Myslenkov A. I.,Hayward G. D.. Year: 2006Estimating population density from indirect sign: track counts and the Formozov-Malyshev-Pereleshin formula. Anim. Conserv.9, 339–34810.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00044.x (doi:10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00044.x)
27. Weishampel D. B.,Dodson P.,Osmólska H.. Year: 2004The Dinosauria. Berkeley/Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press
28. Cooper S. M.. Year: 1991Optimal group size: the need for lions to defend their kills against loss to spotted hyaenas. Afr. J. Ecol.29, 130–13610.1111/j.1365-2028.1991.tb00993.x (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.1991.tb00993.x)
29. Holtz T. R. J.,Brinkman D. L.,Chandler C. L.. Year: 1998Denticle morphometrics and a possibly omnivorous feeding habit for the theropod dinosaur Troodon. Gaia15, 159–166
30. Xu X.,Cheng Y.,Wang X.,Chang H.. Year: 2002An unusual oviraptorosaurian dinosaur from China. Nature419, 291–29310.1038/nature00966 (doi:10.1038/nature00966)12239565
31. Hone D.,Choiniere J.,Sullivan C.,Xu X.,Pittman M.,Tan Q.. Year: 2010New evidence for a trophic relationship between the dinosaurs Velociraptor and Protoceratops.Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol.291, 488–49210.1016/j.palaeo.2010.03.028 (doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2010.03.028)
32. Erickson G. M.,Currie P. J.,Inouye B. D.,Winn A. A.. Year: 2006Tyrannosaur life tables: An example of nonavian dinosaur population biology. Science313, 213–21710.1126/science.1125721 (doi:10.1126/science.1125721)16840697
33. Sankey J. T.,Brinkman D. B.,Guenther M.,Currie P. J.. Year: 2002Small theropod and bird teeth from the Late Cretaceous (late Campanian) Judith River Group, Alberta. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.76, 751–763
34. Erickson G. M.,Makovicky P. J.,Currie P. J.,Norell M. A.,Yerby S. A.,Brochu C. A.. Year: 2004Gigantism and comparative life-history parameters of tyrannosaurid dinosaurs. Nature430, 772–77510.1038/nature02699 (doi:10.1038/nature02699)15306807
35. Parrish M.,Henderson M.,Currie P. J.,Koppelhus E.. Year: 2005The origin, systematics, and paleobiology of the Tyrannosauridae. IL: Northern Illinois University Press
36. Therrien F.,Henderson D. M.. Year: 2007My theropod is bigger than yours… or not: estimating body size from skull length in theropods. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.27, 108–11510.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[108:MTIBTY]2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[108:MTIBTY]2.0.CO;2)
37. Christiansen P.. Year: 1998Strength indicator values of theropod long bones, with comments on limb proportions and cursorial potential. Gaia15, 241–255
38. Longrich N. R.,Currie P. J.. Year: 2009A microraptorine (Dinosauria—Dromaeosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of North America. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA106, 5002–500710.1073/pnas.0811664106 (doi:10.1073/pnas.0811664106)19289829
39. Paul G. S.. Year: 1998Predatory dinosaurs of the world. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster
40. Currie P. J.,Godfrey S. J.,Nessov L.. Year: 1993New caenagnathid (Dinosauria: Theropoda) specimens from the Upper Cretaceous of North America and Asia. Can. J. Earth Sci.30, 2255–227210.1139/e93-196 (doi:10.1139/e93-196)
41. Turvey S. T.,Blackburn T. M.. In press. Determinants of species abundance in the Quaternary vertebrate fossil record. Paleobiology.
42. White P. D.,Fastovsky D. E.,Sheehan P. M.. Year: 1998Taphonomy and suggested structure of the dinosaurian assemblage of the Hell Creek Formation (Maastrichtian), eastern Montana and western North Dakota. Palaios13, 41–5110.2307/3515280 (doi:10.2307/3515280)
43. Russell D. A.,Manabe M.. Year: 2002Synopsis of the Hell Creek (uppermost Cretaceous) dinosaur assemblage. In The Hell Creek formation and the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in the northern Great Plains: an integrated continental record of the end of the Cretaceous (eds Hartman J. H.,Johnson K. R.,Nichols D. J.), vol. 361, pp. 169–176Boulder, CO: Geological Society of America
44. Ackerman J. L.,Bellwood D. R.,Brown J. H.. Year: 2004The contribution of small individuals to density-body size relationships: examination of energetic equivalence in reef fishes. Oecologia139, 568–57110.1007/s00442-004-1536-0 (doi:10.1007/s00442-004-1536-0)15015076
45. Damuth J.. Year: 1981Population density and body size in mammals. Nature290, 699–70010.1038/290699a0 (doi:10.1038/290699a0)
46. Carbone C.,Cowlishaw G.,Isaac N. J. B.,Rowcliffe J. M.. Year: 2005How far do animals go? Determinants of day range in mammals. Am. Nat.165, 290–29710.1086/426790 (doi:10.1086/426790)15729658
47. Carbone C.,Gittleman J. L.. Year: 2002A common rule for the scaling of carnivore density. Science295, 2273–227610.1126/science.1067994 (doi:10.1126/science.1067994)11910114
48. Peczkis J.. Year: 1995Implications for body-mass estimates for dinosaurs. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.14, 520–53310.1080/02724634.1995.10011575 (doi:10.1080/02724634.1995.10011575)
49. Sullivan R. M.. Year: 2003Revision of the dinosaur Stegoceras Lambe (Ornithischia, Pachycephalosauridae). J. Vertebr. Paleontol.23, 181–20710.1671/0272-4634(2003)23[181:ROTDSL]2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2003)23[181:ROTDSL]2.0.CO;2)
50. Boyd C. A.,Brown C. M.,Scheetz R. D.,Clarke J. A.. Year: 2009Taxonomic revision of the basal neornithischian taxa Thescelosaurus and Bugenasaura. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.29, 758–77010.1671/039.029.0328 (doi:10.1671/039.029.0328)
51. Horner J. R.,Goodwin M. B.. Year: 2009Extreme cranial ontogeny in the Upper Cretaceous dinosaur Pachycephalosaurus. PLoS ONE4, e762610.1371/journal.pone.0007626 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007626)19859556
52. Scannella J. B.,Horner J. R.. Year: 2010Torosaurus Marsh, 1891, is Triceratops Marsh, 1889 (Ceratopsidae: Chasmosaurinae): synonymy through ontogeny. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.30, 1157–116810.1080/02724634.2010.483632 (doi:10.1080/02724634.2010.483632)
53. McIntosh J. S.,Coombs W. P. J.,Russell D. A.. Year: 1992A new diplodocid sauropod (Dinosauria) from Wyoming, U.S.A. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.12, 158–16710.1080/02724634.1992.10011446 (doi:10.1080/02724634.1992.10011446)
54. Barrett P. M.. Year: 2005The diet of ostrich dinosaurs (Theropoda: Ornithomimosauria). Palaeontology48, 347–35810.1111/j.1475-4983.2005.00448.x (doi:10.1111/j.1475-4983.2005.00448.x)
55. Ryan M. J.,Vickaryous M. K.. Year: 1997Diet. In Encyclopedia of dinosaurs (eds Currie P. J.,Padian K.), pp. 169–174San Diego, CA: Academic Press
56. Farlow J. O.,Pianka E. R.. Year: 2002Body size overlap, habitat partitioning and living space requirements of terrestrial vertebrate predators: implications for the paleoecology of large theropod dinosaurs. Hist. Biol.16, 21–40
57. Fanti F.,Miyashita T.. Year: 2009A high latitude vertebrate fossil assemblage from the Late Cretaceous of west-central Alberta: evidence for dinosaur nesting and vertebrate latitudinal gradient. Palaeogeogr., Palaeoclimatol., Palaeoecol.275, 37–5310.1016/j.palaeo.2009.02.007 (doi:10.1016/j.palaeo.2009.02.007)
58. Farlow J. O.. Year: 1980Predator/prey biomass ratios, community food webs and dinosaur physiology. In A cold look at warm-blooded dinosaurs (eds Thomas D. K.,Olson E. C.), pp. 55–83Washington, DC: Westview Press
59. Schmidt-Nielsen K.. Year: 1984Scaling: Why is animal size so important?Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
60. Jetz W.,Carbone C.,Fulford J.,Brown J. H.. Year: 2004The scaling of animal space use. Science306, 266–26810.1126/science.1102138 (doi:10.1126/science.1102138)15472074
61. Kruuk H.. Year: 1972The spotted hyena. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
62. Carbone C.,et al. Year: 2005Feeding success of African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) in the Serengeti: the effects of group size and kleptoparasitism. J. Zool.266, 153–16110.1017/S0952836905006710 (doi:10.1017/S0952836905006710)
63. Cooper S. M.. Year: 1991Optimal hunting group-size: the need for lions to defend their kills against loss to spotted hyaenas. Afr. J. Ecol.29, 130–13610.1111/j.1365-2028.1991.tb00993.x (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.1991.tb00993.x)
64. Carbone C.,Maddox T.,Funston P. J.,Mills M. G. L.,Grether G. F.,Van Valkenburgh B.. Year: 2009Parallels between playbacks and Pleistocene tar seeps suggest sociality in an extinct sabretooth cat Smilodon. Biol. Lett.5, 81–8510.1098/rsbl.2008.0526 (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2008.0526)18957359
65. Lawson D. A.. Year: 1975Pterosaur from the latest Cretaceous of west Texas: discovery of the largest flying creature. Science185, 947–94810.1126/science.187.4180.947 (doi:10.1126/science.187.4180.947)17745279
66. Hutchinson J. R.. Year: 2004Biomechanical modeling and sensitivity analysis of bipedal running ability. II. Extinct taxa. J. Morphol.262, 441–46110.1002/jmor.10240 (doi:10.1002/jmor.10240)15352202
67. Sellers W. I.,Manning P. L.. Year: 2007Estimating maximum running speeds using evolutionary robotics. Proc. R. Soc. B274, 2711–271610.1098/rspb.2007.0846 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0846)
68. Kelt D. A.,Van Vuren D. H.. Year: 2001The ecology and macroecology of mammalian home range area. Am. Nat.157, 637–64510.1086/320621 (doi:10.1086/320621)18707280
69. Bakker R. T.. Year: 1986The dinosaur heresies. New York, NY: Morrow
70. Seebacher F.. Year: 2003Dinosaur body temperatures: the occurrence of endothermy and ectothermy. Paleobiology29, 105–12210.1666/0094-8373(2003)029<0105:DBTTOO>2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2003)029<0105:DBTTOO>2.0.CO;2)
71. Pontzer H.,Allen V.,Hutchinson J. R.. Year: 2009Biomechanics of running indicates endothermy in bipedal dinosaurs. PLoS ONE4, e778310.1371/journal.pone.0007783 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007783)19911059
72. Charig A. J.,Milner A. C.. Year: 1997Baryonyx walkeri, a fish-eating dinosaur from the Wealden of Surrey. Bull. Nat. Hist. Mus.53, 11–70
73. Rayfield E. J.,Milner A. C.,Xuan V. B.,Young P. G.. Year: 2007Functional morphology of spinosaur ‘crocodile-mimic’ dinosaurs. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.27, 892–90110.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[892:FMOSCD]2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.1671/0272-4634(2007)27[892:FMOSCD]2.0.CO;2)
74. Amiot R.,et al. Year: 2010Oxygen isotope evidence for semi-aquatic habits among spinosaurid theropods. Geology38, 139–14210.1130/G30402.1 (doi:10.1130/G30402.1)
75. Van Valkenburgh B.,Molnar R. E.. Year: 2002Dinosaurian and mammalian predators compared. Paleobiology28, 527–54310.1666/0094-8373(2002)028<0527:DAMPC>2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.1666/0094-8373(2002)028<0527:DAMPC>2.0.CO;2)
76. Van Valkenburgh B.,Maddox T.,Funston P. J.,Mills M. G. L.,Grether G. F.,Carbone C.. Year: 2009Sociality in Rancho La Brea Smilodon: arguments favour ‘evidence’ over ‘coincidence'. Biol. Lett.5, 563–56410.1098/rsbl.2009.0261 (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0261)
77. Maxwell W. D.,Ostrom J.. Year: 1995Taphonomy and paleobiological implications of Tenontosaurus–Deinonychus associations. J. Vertebr. Paleontol.15, 707–71210.1080/02724634.1995.10011256 (doi:10.1080/02724634.1995.10011256)
78. Roach B. T.,Brinkman D. L.. Year: 2007A reevaluation of cooperative pack hunting and gregariousness in Deinonychus antirrhopus and other nonavian theropod dinosaurs. Bull. Peabody Museum Nat. Hist.48, 103–13810.3374/0079-032X(2007)48[103:AROCPH]2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.3374/0079-032X(2007)48[103:AROCPH]2.0.CO;2)
79. Currie P. J.. Year: 1998Possible evidence of gregarious behavior in tyrannosaurids. Gaia15, 271–277
80. Varricchio D. J.. Year: 2001Gut contents from a Cretaceous tyrannosaurid: implications for theropod dinosaur digestive tracts. J. Paleontol.75, 401–40610.1666/0022-3360(2001)075<0401:GCFACT>2.0.CO;2 (doi:10.1666/0022-3360(2001)075<0401:GCFACT>2.0.CO;2)
81. Carbone C.,Mace G. M.,Roberts S. C.,Macdonald D. W.. Year: 1999Energetic constraints on the diet of terrestrial carnivores. Nature402, 286–28810.1038/46266 (doi:10.1038/46266)10580498
82. Carbone C.,Teacher A.,Rowcliffe J. M.. Year: 2007The costs of carnivory. PLoS Biol.5, 363–36810.1371/journal.pbio.0050022 (doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050022)

Figures

[Figure ID: RSPB20102497F1]
Figure 1. 

Body mass categories and predicted relative abundances of (a) non-avian carnivorous theropods and (b) herbivorous dinosaurs found in Late Cretaceous North America. Relative abundances were estimated from equations derived from abundance–mass relationships found in extant mammalian carnivores and herbivores [47,60] and from body masses for sympatric dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous T. rex community (tables 1 and 2).



[Figure ID: RSPB20102497F2]
Figure 2. 

Left axis: the average time an individual theropod weighing just over 5 tonnes takes between individual encounters with carcasses of varying mass (70 kg to 25 tonnes) given expected carcass densities. Right axis: the number of competing theropods expected to arrive at the carcass in the time it takes T. rex to reach it. The y axes are represented on a log scale to allow the assessment of smaller values.



Tables
[TableWrap ID: RSPB20102497TB1] Table 1. 

Species and body masses of carnivorous non-avian theropod dinosaurs of Late Cretaceous North America. Midpoint taken when a range of body mass estimates is given in the literature. Richardoestesia is only known from jaws and teeth; since maximum tooth size is slightly smaller than that of Saurornitholestes [33], we estimate a body mass of ca 20 kg for this genus based on Saurornitholestes body mass estimates. Body mass estimates for Albertosaurus sarcophagus and T. rex taken as mean of all measurements for adult individuals that had reached somatic maturity given in Erickson et al. [34]. Nanotyrannus has been interpreted as a possible juvenile Tyrannosaurus by some authors [35], but we provisionally retain it here as a valid taxon following [27]. Mass categories and the estimated percentage that each size category contributes to the total carnivore guild are also presented (figure 1).


species family mass (kg) mass categories, kg (with estimated %) reference
Dromaeosaurus albertensis Dromaeosauridae 16 20.6 (79.9%) [36]
Richardoestesia gilmorei Coelurosauria incertae sedis 20 see legend
Richardoestesia isosceles Coelurosauria incertae sedis 20 see legend
Saurornitholestes langstoni Dromaeosauridae 23 [37]
Velociraptor sp. Dromaeosauridae 24 [38]
Troodon formosus Troodontidae 50 58.3 (19.0%) [39]
Chirostenotes elegans Caenagnathidae 63 [40]
Chirostenotes pergracilis Caenagnathidae 63 [40]
Nanotyrannus lancensis Tyrannosauridae 1100 1123 (0.9%) [39]
Albertosaurus sarcophagus Tyrannosauridae 1146 [34]
Tyrannosaurus rex Tyrannosauridae 5347 5347 (0.1%) [34]

[TableWrap ID: RSPB20102497TB2] Table 2. 

Species and body masses of herbivorous dinosaurs of Late Cretaceous North America. Ornithischian and sauropod body masses taken from the midpoint of genus-level estimates in Peczkis [48]; ornithomimosaur body masses taken from Christiansen [37]. Species diversity from Weishampel et al. [27] revised following [4952]; Dyslocosaurus polyonychius also excluded as the suggested Late Cretaceous occurrence of this species is probably erroneous [53]. Mass categories and the estimated percentage each category contributes to the total herbivore guild are based on herbivore mass–abundance relationships found in extant mammalian herbivores (see also figure 1).


species family body mass (kg) mass categories, kg (with estimated %)
Parksosaurus warreni Hypsilophodontidae 55 75 (49.3%)
Prenocephale edmontonensis Pachycephalosauridae 85
Ornithomimus velox Ornithomimosauridae 155 216 (36.8%)
Struthiomimus sp. Ornithomimosauridae 175
Thescelosaurus garbanii Hypsilophodontidae 250
Thescelosaurus neglectus Hypsilophodontidae 250
Leptoceratops gracilis Leptoceratopsidae 250
Montanoceratops sp. Leptoceratopsidae 550 700 (6.0%)
Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis Pachycephalosauridae 850
Edmontosaurus annectens Hadrosauridae 2500 2500 (6.7%)
Edmontosaurus regalis Hadrosauridae 2500
Edmontosaurus saskatchewanensis Hadrosauridae 2500
Lambeosaurus sp. Hadrosauridae 2500
Parasaurolophus walkeri Hadrosauridae 2500
Edmontonia rugosidens Nodosauridae 2500
Ankylosaurus magniventris Ankylosauridae 5500 5000 (0.6%)
Triceratops horridus Ceratopsidae 8500 8500 (0.4%)
Alamosaurus sanjuanensis Saltasauridae 25 000 25 000 (0.2%)

[TableWrap ID: RSPB20102497TB3] Table 3. 

Sensitivity analysis of the impact of varying speed and detection range for ‘small’ (a hypothetical 20 kg species) and ‘large’ (T. rex) theropod dinosaur populations. Scenario 5 shows extreme scaling where T. rex-sized theropods would be predicted to be able to cover the same areas as all other theropod species. In this case the constant sc was set to 6.6 to reduce the km d−1 estimate for T. rex.


speed
detection
theropod mass (kg) km d−1 St (km h−1) Dt (km) ratioa
scenario const. g exp. h const. j exp. k
1 11.9 0.05 0.034 0.1 20 13.8 1.2 0.05 60.1
5347 18.3 1.5 0.08
2 11.9 0.16 0.034 0.1 20 19.2 1.6 0.05 32.5
5347 47.0 3.9 0.08
3 11.9 0.05 0.034 0.25 20 13.8 1.2 0.07 26
5347 18.3 1.5 0.29
4 11.9 0.16 0.034 0.25 20 19.2 1.6 0.07 14
5347 47.0 3.9 0.29
5 6.6 0.35 0.034 0.54 20 18.8 1.6 0.17 1.0
5347 133.2 11.1 3.50

aRatio of the daily area covered by members of a species of 20 kg over that predicted for the T. rex population, based on an estimated density of 177.4 per 1000 km2 for the small species and 2.9 per 1000 km2 for T. rex (see text for details).



Article Categories:
  • 1001
  • 60
  • 144
  • 14
Article Categories:
  • Research Articles

Keywords: Scavenging, hunting behaviour, scramble competition, Tyrannosaurus rex.

Previous Document:  Intuitive physical reasoning about occluded objects by inexperienced chicks.
Next Document:  Failure to fix nitrogen by non-reproductive symbiotic rhizobia triggers host sanctions that reduce f...