1 / 26

Differing impact of carnivores on bone assemblages in two East African Ecosystems

Differing impact of carnivores on bone assemblages in two East African Ecosystems. Anna K. Behrensmeyer Department of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution Briana L. Pobiner Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University. Flesh slicer. Bone crusher. Goals:

LionelDale
Download Presentation

Differing impact of carnivores on bone assemblages in two East African Ecosystems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Differing impact of carnivores on bone assemblages in two East African Ecosystems Anna K. Behrensmeyer Department of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution Briana L. Pobiner Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University

  2. Flesh slicer Bone crusher Goals: Test the effects of different dominant carnivores on recent bone assemblages Impact on models of carcass and prey availability for early hominins

  3. Laikipia Amboseli

  4. Laikipia and Amboseli: Live Census Data 0.45 Laikipia 0.40 Amboseli 1970's 0.35 0.30 Frequency 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 eland giraffe buffalo impala elephant hartebeest beisa oryx black rhino wildebeeste Grant's gazelle Burchell's zebra Thomson's gazelle

  5. What is the taphonomic impact of different top predators? Different Ecosystems Laikipia Amboseli 2002 X X Different Times 1975 X 12 transects 11 transects

  6. Variables to Compare: • Average number of bones per individual • Skeletal part survival • Completeness of femora and humeri • Damage to femora and humeri • Juveniles vs. adults

  7. Burchell’s zebra only

  8. Laikipia Ecosystem

  9. Laikipia Lions on Zebra Prey

  10. Amboseli Ecosystem

  11. Predators of Amboseli Park 1975 - 2003

  12. Amboseli: Change in Patterns of Destruction Same transects, 1975 and 2002 1975 Bones / Individual 2002 HR, RO GAZ, IM WB, CW BF HP, RH EL ZB GF Increased Body Size

  13. Amboseli Ecosystem Taphosystem • Diverse predators • Lions dominant • Few hyenas • Abundant carcasses • Low damage levels 1975 1990 2002- 2003 • Lions absent • Hyenas increasing • Abundant carcasses • Few zebra deaths • Fresh carcasses rare • 71% decrease in bones • High damage levels • Many hyenas • Few lions

  14. Hyena dominance and intraspecific competition is driving the change in carcass and bone survival.

  15. Working hypothesis: If the top predator controls the destruction patterns of prey skeletons, then Laikipia 2002 should be more similar to Amboseli 1975 than Amboseli 2002-03. Different Ecosystems Laikipia Amboseli 2002 Lion Hyena Different Times 1975 Lion

  16. Average Bones per MNI 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 Bones / MNI 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 Ambo 1975 Ambo 02-03 Laikipia 02

  17. Laikipia 02 MNI = 27 Ribs Skull Tibia Femur Patella Podials Scapula Humerus Vertebrae Metatarsal Phalanges Jaw (hemi) Metacarpal Innominate Radius/ulna Zebra Skeletal Part Survival Amboseli 1975 and 2002-3 vs. Laikipia 2002 0.45 0.40 Ambo 1975 MNI = 45 Ambo 2002-3 MNI = 36 0.35 0.30 0.25 Observed / Expected 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 Forelimb Hindlimb

  18. Laikipia 02 (N = 9) Completeness of Humerus and Femur 0.60 Ambo 75 (N = 48) Ambo 02-03 (N = 17) 0.50 0.40 Frequency 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Whole Prox.– Distal Pair Shaft only Prox. only Prox. + Shaft Distal + Shaft Distal only

  19. Damage Categories A: Minimal: tooth marks, scoring B: Moderate: marginal gnawing; one end absent C: Heavy: both ends gnawed or absent D: Fragments only

  20. 0.70 Laikipia 02 (N = 9) 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Increasing damage Damage to Humerus and Femur Ambo 75 (N = 48) Ambo 02 03 (N = 17) Frequency A Minimal B Moderate C Heavy D Fragments No Damage

  21. Adult Juvenile Adults vs. Juveniles 35 30 25 20 MNI 15 10 5 0 Ambo 1975 Ambo 02 - 03 Laikipia 02

  22. Laikipia Amboseli Dominant Predator Lion 2002-03 Hyena 1975 Lion

  23. Conclusions Laikipia 2002 bone assemblage more similar to Amboseli 2002-03 than to Amboseli 1975. Our prediction is not supported. Lion vs. hyena dominance does not leave a clear taphonomic signal in the bone assemblage based on the variables we used. New Hypothesis: Damage levels may be better indicators of overall predator pressure on the prey populations than the signature of the dominant predator(s).

  24. Skeletal part survival affected by: • bone-processing capabilities of predators • …but also probably by: • intraspecific competition for prey • predator social structure • predator diversity • Carcass availability and damage patterns can change over decades.

  25. Carcasses (and prey) available to early hominins would have varied greatly in time and space because of variablity in predator consumption of carcasses. Recognition of this variability could have been an important adaptive strategy for meat-seeking hominin individuals and groups.

  26. With Thanks to: The National Museums of Kenya The Kenya Wildlife Service The National Geographic Society David Western, Dorothy Dechant, Richard Leakey, and all the individuals who have helped with Amboseli bone research Fulbright-Hays Fellowship to B. Pobiner Sweetwaters Game Reserve, Laikipia, Kenya

More Related