What is the top predator in the ocean besides man?

Looking at the speed charts the fastest creatures in the sea are typically stated as either the swordfish or sailfish:
http://www.elasmo-research.org/educa...'_bass.htm
http://www.speedofanimals.com/animals/tiger_shark?g=t

If these numbers are true then the billfish cannot be caught by any other predator based on speed alone. However, it might be that the speed of the Mako shark, usually regarded as the fastest shark, is actually understated, for example see the video here which at least puts the Mako faster than the Tuna (unlike the aforementioned speed charts) although it does not mention if it is faster than the billfish:

YouTube video titled: "Shark Week- Mako Shark's Speed"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcO1UHVNkEI

If this video is factual, it means the Mako might be faster than the Orca and that a school of Mako sharks (weighing up to 450kgs) should be able to easily devour Orcas (4-6 tons) in piranha like fashion, also being able to escape by diving to depths where the Orcas cannot reach them. This contrasts with Great White sharks which are a bit slower and sometimes fall prey to Orcas, and I don't have a source showing Makos being eaten by Orcas.

So what do you think, what is the top predator in the ocean: is it a billfish such as the sailfish, the Mako shark, Orcas, the Catchalot (sperm whale), a Seal such as Sea Lions, one of the smaller toothed whales (dolphins) like flipper, or something else?

Disease. That will rob the fastest of animals of all of their speed, which will slow them down sufficiently that a simple worm can consume them. Nobody is immune forever.

Like the virus that killed the aliens in War of the Worlds, or the latest outbreak of Ebola in Uganda last month?

Pretty much.

Figuring out which is the top predator is kind of a natural offshoot of a society that favors competition. We want to know what is the toughest. Can your shark beat up my Orca? Unfortunately, the question can't be answered definitively. All animals can be beaten by just the right bacteria or virus. Furthermore, some competitions just don't happen. The blue-ringed octopus, if it were to work in conjunction with other octopi (it is certainly smart enough) packs such a potent venom that it could kill pretty nearly anything. However, the blue-ringed octopus does NOT work in conjunction with other octopi, and is mostly a shy, retiring, animal. Therefore, that potent toxin is used for feeding and a last line of defense, and we can never know who would win in a cage match. The same could be said for Orcas. They can travel in packs, they are well equipt to kill things, but lots of potential prey never come into contact with them, and therefore they can't be matched up.

Woman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Can your shark beat up my Orca?

---

An Orca would pwn a shark owing to its greater intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Pretty much.

Figuring out which is the top predator is kind of a natural offshoot of a society that favors competition. We want to know what is the toughest. Can your shark beat up my Orca? Unfortunately, the question can't be answered definitively. All animals can be beaten by just the right bacteria or virus. Furthermore, some competitions just don't happen. The blue-ringed octopus, if it were to work in conjunction with other octopi (it is certainly smart enough) packs such a potent venom that it could kill pretty nearly anything. However, the blue-ringed octopus does NOT work in conjunction with other octopi, and is mostly a shy, retiring, animal. Therefore, that potent toxin is used for feeding and a last line of defense, and we can never know who would win in a cage match. The same could be said for Orcas. They can travel in packs, they are well equipt to kill things, but lots of potential prey never come into contact with them, and therefore they can't be matched up.

---

By using the phrase "a society that favors competition" you seem to be referring to society based on survival of the fittest which I have to agree with you would not be a very friendly or compassionate one, although don't forget there is also the use of superior force to defend oneself and protect others.

Not sure about the octopus or squid being the top predator as they all seem to die shortly after mating.

If you like poison, as the blue ringed produces a venom rich in tetrodotoxin (also in the pufferfish) which is 10,000 more toxic than cyanide then you could take a look the sea snakes which do hunt in groups e.g. "Huge aggregations of sea snakes have been reported. For example, in 1932 millions of Astrotia stokesii, a relative of Pelamis, were seen from a steamer in the Strait of Malacca, off the coast of Malaysia, and formed a line of snakes 3 m (9.8 ft) wide and 100 km (62 mi) long. The cause of this phenomenon is unknown". source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_snake

All of the sea snakes seem to be poisonous as I can't find any aquatic constrictors like the green anaconda or the reticulated python in the ocean, although I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

An Orca would pwn a shark owing to its greater intelligence.

---

Can you give me an example?

There may not BE an example. What would be the justification for an Orca killing a shark? Food is the likely reason, but Orcas may not like the taste or fat content of sharks. Predators often compete indirectly be reducing the food supply of their competitor rather than direct aggressive competition.

The toxicity of a puffer fish doesn't really count, as it is unable to use that toxicity aggressively, whereas both the sea snakes and the octopus could. Similarly, the box jellyfish is just too passive to count as a top predator, despite being highly toxic, and slightly more able to project that toxicity than the puffer. Barracuda are another one with a toxin similar to that found in the puffer, but a barracuda is clearly a predator, though it doesn't use the toxin for predation.

I'm not sure that dying after mating should be a reason to discount an animal from being a top predator. Everything dies, so exactly when that happens seems a bit irrelevant.

Nice, I got a double post by some odd means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

Can you give me an example?

---

As Shaggy said , there may not be an example. This is an extrapolation on my part because I've heard people claim that there have been times that dolphins have beaten sharks and Orcas are the larger cousins of dolphins.

Shaggy and Niya, what I mean is can you give me an example of how Orcas can use their intelligence to escape from a school of Mako sharks, taking into account the sharks are faster and can wait in the depths and then ambush any mammals when they forced to the surface to breath including Orcas, and they also have electroreceptors which allow them to sense the electrical field emitted by any living creatures making it almost impossible for the Orcas to hide from the sharks? By contrast a Mako can so easily dive to escape a rabid Orca.

I don't see how Orcas can use their intelligence to stop the equation: Mako sharks + Orcas = Orca chowder.



Shaggy, I always thought barracuda were a popular game and table fish, are you sure they contain any poisonous compounds?

Quote:

---

I mean is can you give me an example of how Orcas can use their intelligence to escape from a school of Mako sharks

---

Why would the Orca be attending a school for Mako sharks anyway? Is he an exchange student? Mind you, if he's more intelligent than the rest of the students he'll probably do quite well so may not want to escape.

My vote for top predator would go to the Blue Whale. That's assuming eating plankton counts as predation as a decent proportion of it is animal. They also eat small fish (which they actually herd to make catching them easier) in massive quantities. In terms of volume of animal matter consumed (which seems the best definition of Top Predator to me) the Blue Whale has got to be up there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

My vote for top predator would go to the Blue Whale.

---

That's the largest animal that has ever lived on the planet, with the heavyweight females weighing in at 180 metric tons, substantially more than the heaviest currently known dinosaur Amphicoelias fragillimus which is estimated to have weighed a mere 122 tons (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_size)

It has an enormous skeleton including a giant head and mouth, and some of the largest organs found anywhere in the animal kingdom including the heart and lungs.
As far as its diet is concerned I think the baleen of the Blue whale is only designed to eat krill, its the fin whale that can eat fish and squid.
Surprisingly for such a large animal it can travel up to 50 kilometres per hour (31 mph) over short bursts.

No doubt a fine contender for top predator in terms of the volume of animal matter consumed and overall headcount, and no doubt it has the best most muscular pose and a giangantic phallus, however, the testicles of the right whale are ten times bigger than the blue whale and while it has the largest head it doesn't have the largest brain. Another obvious weakness is that it is restricted to prey no larger than 10mm in size.
Also while it is fast, I am not sure that it is fast enough to avoid being turned into blue whale sushi by a hungry school of Wahoo or tuna.

This thread sounds a bit like Mortal Kombat: Ocean Edition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

Shaggy, I always thought barracuda were a popular game and table fish, are you sure they contain any poisonous compounds?

---

All true. I even know the name of the toxin, I just can't spell it. The toxin doesn't appear to be created by the barracuda, but is bio-concentrated into the tissues from the diet of the barracuda. This means that small fish are quite edible, and are considered very tasty. However, at some point, the amount of toxin in the flesh has gotten to the lethal level, so eating barracuda is something of a game of fish roullette. I was told that there are a few deaths each year from eating barracuda that are too large. This mostly occurs in the Bahamas, and other islands, where barracuda is something of a delicacy.


Here's a link that talks about it in more detail, but is also a bit vague, and a bit chilling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciguatera

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

Shaggy and Niya, what I mean is can you give me an example of how Orcas can use their intelligence to escape from a school of Mako sharks........I don't see how Orcas can use their intelligence to stop the equation: Mako sharks + Orcas = Orca chowder.

---

Here you go ;)

Here's a quote from the 3rd paragraph of that article:-

Quote:

---

Using a combination of superior brain power and brute force, the highly-intelligent orcas are able to catch and eat what many think of as the ocean's top predators.

---

Here is another article about orcas. Its quite long but pay particular attention to the 'Hunting Behavior' section. It really highlights just how intelligent these creatures are.

Here is another very interesting article on dolphin intelligence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

This thread sounds a bit like Mortal Kombat: Ocean Edition.



All true. I even know the name of the toxin, I just can't spell it. The toxin doesn't appear to be created by the barracuda, but is bio-concentrated into the tissues from the diet of the barracuda. This means that small fish are quite edible, and are considered very tasty. However, at some point, the amount of toxin in the flesh has gotten to the lethal level, so eating barracuda is something of a game of fish roullette. I was told that there are a few deaths each year from eating barracuda that are too large. This mostly occurs in the Bahamas, and other islands, where barracuda is something of a delicacy.


Here's a link that talks about it in more detail, but is also a bit vague, and a bit chilling:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciguatera

---

All true, it seems it is something akin to mercury poisoning except the toxin is created by a harmful neurotoxic bloom of Dinoflagellates (plankton).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Here you go ;)

---

Well done, the sharks do seem to have a weakness: 'They always eventually turn the shark upside down," added Dr Visser. "At that point the shark cannot fight back, it has been a successful hunt and they can feed.' When sharks are quickly flipped upside down, they enter a paralysed state known as 'tonic immobility' - making for an easy meal. This reminds me of the end scene in Deep Blue Sea where LL Cool J makes an explosive from the gun powder in some flares and then attaches it to a harpoon and shoots the last genetically engineered Mako shark, and then sets off the explosion by connecting the harpoon cable to a car battery blowing up the shark.

So in order to kill a single shark a whole pod of Orcas has to surround and ram it from all directions until it can be turned upside down.

There does not seem to be any problem with the Mako shark's eyes which are usually described as well developed except that they don't see in colour (which is a relatively recent discovery: http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3493978.htm), although an Orca's skin would make it high contrast and therefore highly visible to a shark, meaning that any sharks that are killed must simply not feel threatened by swimming next to an entire pod of Orcas.

My theory is that swimming too close to a pod of Orcas is a mistake only made by young sharks who can otherwise simply dive to escape if they are outnumbered. If correct this would mean that Mako sharks are more likely to eat Orcas than the other way around. Also due to its speed disadvantage the Orca is also potentially prey to other species of fast swimming piranha like fish including Albacore, Bonito, Blue and Yellow fin Tuna and Wahoo putting it even further down the food chain.

Also the end scene in Deep Blue Sea was busted by the mythbusters: http://mythbustersresults.com/phone-book-friction

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Here is another very interesting article on dolphin intelligence.

---

The problem is that all sea mammals that are forced to live in the ocean, and cannot escape on land or ice, are likely easy prey to the fastest sharks and fish of the ocean no matter how smart they are.

I rather doubt that, frankly. Just because a school of some kind of fish COULD attack a certain target, that doesn't mean that they do. The first thread on Orcas killing mako sharks suggests that it is often a very solitary hunt, and also very opportunistic. Do you have evidence of a group of sharks taking on an orca?

Another point that is interesting in those articles is that the Orca doesn't appear to be using its mouth for anything other than eating. It attacks with either momentum or fin effects, though that latter might be just a fluke.

Well the point is cetaceans can use their intelligence to invent strategies to negate any advantages their prey may have even if said prey is a predator itself. The sharks may be faster and may possess all manner of super senses but its no match for plain old common sense. Look at humans, the most dominant predator on the planet. We are slow(unlike quadrupeds like the big cats), have no super hearing(dogs), no super smell(dogs), no ability to detect electrical fields(sharks), no flight(birds), no super sight(eagles, hawks), no claws(falcons, cats), no horns(goats, bulls, buffalos), no super immunity(komodo dragons), no ability to see heat(snakes), no super strength(lions, tigers, bears etc.). Every other vertebrate on the planet has one or more of these advantages and yet we dominate. Intelligence is the ultimate adaptation for survival.

EDIT:

I think the only purely physiological advantage we have over most other vertebrates is our ability to distinguish colour. Most vertebrates have severe constraints on how many colours they can see and even that doesn't really give you any super advantage. Being able to detect movement and recognize shapes are far more important than colours.

Plenty of vertebrates DO see color, and some see more color than we do. I think you were right the first time.

Isn't it this one? :confused:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qifec2KgHo.../predators.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

I rather doubt that, frankly. Just because a school of some kind of fish COULD attack a certain target, that doesn't mean that they do. The first thread on Orcas killing mako sharks suggests that it is often a very solitary hunt, and also very opportunistic. Do you have evidence of a group of sharks taking on an orca?

---

The Wiki page on Great White sharks admits that in rare cases Great Whites are preyed on by Orcas. Even so, I am still not convinced that Orcas are higher up the food chain and designed to regularly eat fully grown Mako and Great Whites, instead it seems much more likely that they are only able to take on young or injured sharks thus accounting for these rare cases.

In addition some recent research has revealed that Orcas that make sharks a part of their diet, in this case they were recorded regularly preying on Pacific sleeper sharks, wear their teeth all the way down to the gums, see the Scientific American article here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...le-pays-a-pric. This indicates that Orcas are primarily designed to eat mammals and are simply not made to be a shark predator, further weakening the case for the Orcas as the top ocean predator. By contrast a shark's teeth keep on growing to replace any damaged teeth throughout its life meaning it has the tools for the job.

Also it is usually rare to see the Cheetah and the Lion trying to prey on each other as there is no competition over prey. The Lions are not fast enough to catch the fastest herbivores such as Pronghorn antelope or Springbok which are the primary prey species for the Cheetahs. Likewise the Orcas can't catch the fastest fish leaving them all to the Makos (probably better for their teeth too).

Although the Wiki page lists tuna (regular toothed) and swordfish (billfish) as prey for the Mako(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortfin_mako_shark) it may be that the fastest billfish such as the Black Marlin (which seems like a misnomer for a silvery white faced and bodied fish) are even faster, for example see this BBC video here which claims that Black Marlin can swim up to 80 mph and therefore might be able to escape from Makos:

YouTube video titled: "Black marlin - the fastest fish on the planet - Ultimate Killers - BBC wildlife"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD7t057XIi8

If true it would mean that the Black Marlin would not be regular prey for the Mako potentially making it the top predator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Well the point is cetaceans can use their intelligence to invent strategies to negate any advantages their prey may have even if said prey is a predator itself. The sharks may be faster and may possess all manner of super senses but its no match for plain old common sense. Look at humans, the most dominant predator on the planet. We are slow(unlike quadrupeds like the big cats), have no super hearing(dogs), no super smell(dogs), no ability to detect electrical fields(sharks), no flight(birds), no super sight(eagles, hawks), no claws(falcons, cats), no horns(goats, bulls, buffalos), no super immunity(komodo dragons), no ability to see heat(snakes), no super strength(lions, tigers, bears etc.). Every other vertebrate on the planet has one or more of these advantages and yet we dominate. Intelligence is the ultimate adaptation for survival.

---

Good point Niya, speed and weapons do not necessarily define the top predator, sometimes intelligence particularly if it is combined with the ability to use tools, the hand of man in particular means that he can make more use of any intellectual advantage, can determine the top predator.

On this point the largest brain (definitely not the largest head) in the animal Kingdom belongs to the Cachalot (Sperm Whale) and the second largest brain belongs to the Orca. However, it is clearly not always about about having the largest brain as in the case of modern man, which is not only little compared to aforementioned creatures, it also has 10 percent brain volume disadvantage relative to Neanderthal Man (source: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v1i10a.htm), thus it is also about brain development.

Taking this into account I think the most intelligent sea creature might just be the Sea Otter as it has little hand like paws that allow it to use tools such as rocks to break open shells, turn over rocks and even to catch fish rather than with its teeth. As you say about humans it doesn't have super strength or speed, however, it might just be the most intelligent and handsome sea creature and the closest match to humans that can be found in the oceans. Weighing in at only up to 48kgs and up to 1.5 metres (5 ft) tall, with webbed hind feet for swimming, it nonetheless has been recorded eating giant octopuses (up to 70kgs in weight) and having a diet rich in fish. Predation of the Sea Otter is not said to be common, and one of the reasons given is that the otter, with their pungent scent glands, are distasteful. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_otter)

Also as the Sea Otter (formerly sometimes called the Sea Beaver) is the most comfortable of all the sea creatures on land it can readily escape to land or ice in order to evade becoming fish food unlike dolphins or whales.

Other potential contenders for the most intelligent sea creature include seals and penguins who can jump out of the water to escape from having to sleep with the fishes.

So, what's the point of all this? It appears that you have concluded that there isn't a single pyramid with a single creature occupying the top spot, which would be correct, but why bother even considering it?

Quote:

---

I think the baleen of the Blue whale is only designed to eat krill,

---

I just did a quick google to check and that's most often cited. However, about a month ago I was watching a David Attenborough program that showed them herding small fish. What they did was fascinating. They all dove down deep and then a few circled underneath a school of fish while blowing bubbles and giving sonar "shouts". The shouts dissorientated the fish while the bubbles acted as a net, forcing the fish into a smaller and smaller bait-ball. Then the other blue whales swam rapidly upwards with their mouths open and scoffed the lot. They subsequently switched roles and repeated the process.

I wish I could find a source to cite for it becauuse it was seriously interesting

Quote:

---

and no doubt it has the best most muscular pose and a giangantic phallus, however, the testicles of the right whale are ten times bigger than the blue whale

---

I'm not sure that's really relevant to qualifying who the top predator is but it's nice to know old Bluey's got it where it counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

So, what's the point of all this? It appears that you have concluded that there isn't a single pyramid with a single creature occupying the top spot, which would be correct, but why bother even considering it?

---

Don't forget the sea birds: sea eagles, osprey (sea hawk), colonies of coastal falcons, in fact any sea bird with a beak strong enough to pierce sea mammal skin can also potentially get an easy mouthful of flesh every time they get to the surface to breath. Same goes for sea reptiles. Moreover although some can dive to great depths to hunt small fish I don't think they present much of a threat to sharks.

Sea birds might put sea mammals even further down the food chain.

Now that I have the main contenders, at least I hope I have the main contenders, I can now try and create some sort of hierarchy out of them and try to determine the top predator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

So, what's the point of all this? It appears that you have concluded that there isn't a single pyramid with a single creature occupying the top spot, which would be correct, but why bother even considering it?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

Don't forget the sea birds: sea eagles, osprey (sea hawk), colonies of coastal falcons, in fact any sea bird with a beak strong enough to pierce sea mammal skin can also potentially get an easy mouthful of flesh every time they get to the surface to breath. Same goes for sea reptiles. Moreover although some can dive to great depths to hunt small fish I don't think they present much of a threat to sharks.

Sea birds might put sea mammals even further down the food chain.

Now that I have the main contenders, at least I hope I have the main contenders, I can now try and create some sort of hierarchy out of them and try to determine the top predator.

---

There is no absolute top predator when you exclude man. With the ultimate super predator homo-sapien excluded for any weighing, the top predator title is always relative. A top predator in one environment may not even be equipped to compete in another environment. Looking for a super all powerful top predator in all the animal kingdom is as futile as trying to get pregnant without a placenta.

well besides the whales the global warming is the top predator :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I'm not sure that's really relevant to qualifying who the top predator is but it's nice to know old Bluey's got it where it counts.

---

He does although you should see the size of his old lady, they don't call her "Big Mama" for nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

There is no absolute top predator when you exclude man. With the ultimate super predator homo-sapien excluded for any weighing, the top predator title is always relative. A top predator in one environment may not even be equipped to compete in another environment. Looking for a super all powerful top predator in all the animal kingdom is as futile as trying to get pregnant without a placenta.

---

Although as you say it is clear that Man is the top predator on planet earth even though many other animals can and do prey on humans. In the ocean I think the Great White shark is the predator credited with the having the most human scalps which arguably is another point in the favour of sharks as the top predator in the ocean. If the top predator on the planet can be determined, I don't see why it is impossible to determine the top predator in the sea.

I presume that the reference to getting pregnant is because most of the top ocean predators including Orcas are matriarchal rather than patriarchal species, and not that you are female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ahmedkhairy

well besides the whales the global warming is the top predator :)

---

Which whale, one of the larger Baleen whales, the whale killer, or one of the smaller whales eg dolphins or porpoises?

Goats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonker Gudd

Goats.

---

Was that a vote for the Billfish, Moby Dick, the Goatfish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatfish)?, or the mythological sea goat (half man half goat) more commonly known as Capricorn one of the constellations of the zodiac?

I think you need to define what you mean by top.

At the moment you're able to (and repeatedly have) trivially dispute any answer your given. But you're disputing them not on the basis that the given answer is wrong but rather on the basis that it doesn't qualify against a set of criteria that you are changing to suit your current response. that makes it impossible to answer your question in any meaningful way.

I suspect your definition for "top" is basically who would win in a fight, the answer to which is almost always whoever is in their own element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I think you need to define what you mean by top.

At the moment you're able to (and repeatedly have) trivially dispute any answer your given. But you're disputing them not on the basis that the given answer is wrong but rather on the basis that it doesn't qualify against a set of criteria that you are changing to suit your current response. that makes it impossible to answer your question in any meaningful way.

I suspect your definition for "top" is basically who would win in a fight, the answer to which is almost always whoever is in their own element.

---

I concur, and was about to say this.

the ocean is a large place with different environments. Marine creatures have the ability to get away from one another, and the 'top predators' in one region have no contact with predators in another. It's like saying 'who would win: a red 1984 Ferrari Testarossa or a blue 1997 Ford F250?'

Also, I refer you to the George Bush Quote in my sig. Can't all the fish just get along? Peace, Love and Plankton, Baby!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I think you need to define what you mean by top.

At the moment you're able to (and repeatedly have) trivially dispute any answer your given. But you're disputing them not on the basis that the given answer is wrong but rather on the basis that it doesn't qualify against a set of criteria that you are changing to suit your current response. that makes it impossible to answer your question in any meaningful way.

I suspect your definition for "top" is basically who would win in a fight, the answer to which is almost always whoever is in their own element.

---

By top I mean top of the food chain, the top predator in the Oceans. The idea is to examine all of the main contenders and determine what is the overall top oceanic predator. I can't be too restrictive, it could be the fastest, the most poisonous, the most heavily armoured, the most intelligent, or the best all rounder. I have tried to use only quality references in order to avoid trivializing the determination.

As these are all oceanic creatures they should all be in their element, unlike man going into the sea.

I am sorry that old Bluey is not the top predator as she is not even capable of attacking any of the medium to larger fish or sea mammals, and is instead prey for the faster predators with sharper teeth, like an elephant or giraffe on land. If you still think the Blue whale is the top predator, make a case for it against all the other predators in the ocean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SJWhiteley

I concur, and was about to say this.

the ocean is a large place with different environments. Marine creatures have the ability to get away from one another, and the 'top predators' in one region have no contact with predators in another. It's like saying 'who would win: a red 1984 Ferrari Testarossa or a blue 1997 Ford F250?'

---

Nonetheless determining the top oceanic predator is the goal of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Also, I refer you to the George Bush Quote in my sig. Can't all the fish just get along? Peace, Love and Plankton, Baby!

---

Fish taste good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

Nonetheless determining the top oceanic predator is the goal of this thread.

---

And the answer is: There isn't one!

All animals die, and all are consumed by something else. They are also all killed by something, which may be as simple as a virus, as random as being struck by a cargo ship, as bizarre as being eaten from the inside out by a parasite, or as obvious as being consumed by a predator. Furthermore, there are plenty of situations where a single species can be both predator and prey to a second species. You mentioned the animals that prey on humans, but there isn't a single one of those animals that hasn't been slaughtered by humans, while most have been driven to the brink of extinction, if not beyond, by humans. This includes the Great Whites.

You want to reduce the complexity of a food web to a single pyramid that has a single seat on top. Any answer you come up with that fits that criteria is flat out wrong. It's a web, not a chain. There is no beginning and no end. Nobody is best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Can't all the fish just get along?

---

Exactly.....Make Waves Not War

Quote:

---

It's a web, not a chain.

---

Damnit, you stole my answer!

Quote:

---

By top I mean top of the food chain, the top predator in the Oceans. The idea is to examine all of the main contenders and determine what is the overall top oceanic predator. I can't be too restrictive, it could be the fastest, the most poisonous, the most heavily armoured, the most intelligent, or the best all rounder. I have tried to use only quality references in order to avoid trivializing the determination.

---

This paragraph illustrates the whole problem withe the premise of your question.

You start by saying the "top of the food chain". Putting aside Shaggy's correct assertion that there's no such thing and pretending there is for a second, you then go on to say the fastest, most poisonous etc. What's to say those things corellate in any way? Why does the one that eats everything else have to be the most physically endowed? And if you want to judge by physical endowment then you need to somehow rank those endowments and provide a scoring mechanism, otherwise any answer given will be disputable as there's defined set of rules. It's like watching the old Gladiators shows where John Anderson would randomly disqualify the gldiators and contestants for rules that nobody had mentioned up to that point... because there were no rules. Don't get me wrong, it made for great TV and we all enjoyed staring at Jet's rack but it hardly constituted a properly competitive sport.

Also, I think you're concept of top predators predating on each other is also flawed. I risk being corrected on this one, particularly by Shaggy who's a fish biologist, but I don't believe top predators generally do that. They may kill each other to eliminate competition and may even feed upon teh resulting corpse, but top predators rarely (probably never) represent each other's primary food source. The reason for that is quite obvious. Top predators ARE fast, strong and intelligent. They have finely honed senses of smell, sight and hearing. They have all these things becaase, in the final analysis, unless they are better endowed than their prey they will die of starvation and the species will become extinct. Prey animals, on the other hand, can afford to be slow, weak and dumb... just as long as they breed in enough numbers and enough grass or seaweed to ensure the survival of the species. so if you're a predator what's your best survival strategy: 1. to eat cows or 2: to eat lions.

Finally this "As these are all oceanic creatures they should all be in their element" is utterly wrong. That's like saying the land constitutes a constistent enviroment everywhene on the planet. It doesn't and neither does the sea. An arctic ocean presents an utterly different enviroment to a tropical one. A busy shipping lane will affect it. A reef. An area with shallows as opposed to a deep sea trench.

I won't contradict that. Most predators avoid directly competing with each other because it's such a bad idea. Wolves could take a mountain lion, or even a grizzly, but they would suffer losses in doing so. Since they don't reproduce all that fast, they can't afford to suffer many losses, or they will be wiped out. After all, they are in it for one thing: Survival. Therefore, they will always run from a fight they judge to be fair, because winning means nothing, and only eating without taking loss is acceptable. Therefore, they don't take on something they feel might be able to hurt them.

For instance, the reason that wolves eat elk is because elk are disorganized. For elk, it is sufficient if the wolves eat some other member of the herd, as long as they themselves survive. If elk were to work as a team, they'd eliminate wolves (or more likely, the wolves would change prey), because they would stomp the wolves into jam. Since they don't work as a team, the wolves can separate a single animal, while the rest of the herd runs off. Against a single animal, the wolves can exploit an unguarded flank, and rarely lose a pack member. If that was not the case, and the elk teamed up, the wolves might lose one or more members in each hunt, which would wipe out a pack in a month, or so.

It's all just probability math out there, and the animals all play the percentages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

And the answer is: There isn't one!

---

Not sure I am with you on this point, it seems quite obvious that Man is currently the top organic based life form on this planet, even though Man can be struck down by viruses including Ebola and Aids or eaten by Lions and Great White sharks. As a result it does not seem an insurmountable task to determine the top oceanic predator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

All animals die, and all are consumed by something else. They are also all killed by something, which may be as simple as a virus, as random as being struck by a cargo ship, as bizarre as being eaten from the inside out by a parasite, or as obvious as being consumed by a predator.

---

Sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Furthermore, there are plenty of situations where a single species can be both predator and prey to a second species. You mentioned the animals that prey on humans, but there isn't a single one of those animals that hasn't been slaughtered by humans, while most have been driven to the brink of extinction, if not beyond, by humans. This includes the Great Whites.

---

That's correct, being able to prey on another species does not automatically put it higher up the predatory hierarchy and working out which species is dominant when there are two species that can kill each other is the fun part of the challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

You want to reduce the complexity of a food web to a single pyramid that has a single seat on top. Any answer you come up with that fits that criteria is flat out wrong. It's a web, not a chain. There is no beginning and no end. Nobody is best.

---

Not sure I agree, while some calls are tricky others are fairly straightforward. In this case the top oceanic predator was fairly easy to spot with the information that I have, although determining silver and bronze is a bit more difficult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Damnit, you stole my answer!

This paragraph illustrates the whole problem withe the premise of your question.

You start by saying the "top of the food chain". Putting aside Shaggy's correct assertion that there's no such thing and pretending there is for a second, you then go on to say the fastest, most poisonous etc. What's to say those things corellate in any way? Why does the one that eats everything else have to be the most physically endowed? And if you want to judge by physical endowment then you need to somehow rank those endowments and provide a scoring mechanism, otherwise any answer given will be disputable as there's defined set of rules. It's like watching the old Gladiators shows where John Anderson would randomly disqualify the gldiators and contestants for rules that nobody had mentioned up to that point... because there were no rules. Don't get me wrong, it made for great TV and we all enjoyed staring at Jet's rack but it hardly constituted a properly competitive sport.

---

That's the fun of it, trying to work out all the strengths and weaknesses in an objective manner and then determining which strategies currently dominate. It doesn't have to be the most physically endowed it could also be the most intelligent or the best all rounder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Also, I think you're concept of top predators predating on each other is also flawed. I risk being corrected on this one, particularly by Shaggy who's a fish biologist, but I don't believe top predators generally do that. They may kill each other to eliminate competition and may even feed upon teh resulting corpse, but top predators rarely (probably never) represent each other's primary food source.

---

If there is no competition over prey it is unlikely that there is any need for two predators to fight each other except to try to assert dominance which does occur in some cases, the Orcas for instance are very prone to attacking and humiliating many oceanic species although the Orcas are not as tough as they make out and these showy displays are more a symptom of being placed in a situation where they largely have no escape strategy against several oceanic predators and are therefore forced into an primarily offensive strategy which includes intimidation and humiliation. In cases where there is no or limited data regarding the interactivity between two species there are sometimes clues regarding the probable outcome of any conflict which helps coming to a final determination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

Finally this "As these are all oceanic creatures they should all be in their element" is utterly wrong. That's like saying the land constitutes a constistent enviroment everywhene on the planet. It doesn't and neither does the sea. An arctic ocean presents an utterly different enviroment to a tropical one. A busy shipping lane will affect it. A reef. An area with shallows as opposed to a deep sea trench.

---

Nonetheless they are all oceanic creatures and water is their element by definition. To me it doesn't matter if they only live in reefs, or only in tropical or artic environments, what I am looking for is a creature's capacity to make it as the world's best oceanic predator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

Not sure I agree, while some calls are tricky others are fairly straightforward. In this case the top oceanic predator was fairly easy to spot with the information that I have, although determining silver and bronze is a bit more difficult.

---

Really? You already determined which was the top predator? All the rest of this must have been just smoke then, and very effective smoke, too, as I can't tell which species you chose after all this writing.

"Working out which species is dominant" is only a fun part of the challenge if you don't care about being right in your conclusion.

Your analysis of the motivations of orcas is downright bizarre, though there does seem to be a use for doing so. It sounds like you are trying to come up with a handicapping scheme for a new 'fantasy' league. Is that what you are doing? Some kind of Fantasy Predators, Ocean Edition? If that isn't the case, then you assigning motives to animals that are totally unfounded, even theoretically. Animals don't get "humiliated". They are all bottome line in their evaluation: Any time you live for another day you are a winner, and there is no second place. That goes just as much for predators as prey, since every single animal performs both roles every day. Only the plants are exclusively prey (and not all of them, either).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witis

That's the fun of it, trying to work out all the strengths and weaknesses in an objective manner and then determining which strategies currently dominate. It doesn't have to be the most physically endowed it could also be the most intelligent or the best all rounder.Nonetheless they are all oceanic creatures and water is their element by definition. To me it doesn't matter if they only live in reefs, or only in tropical or artic environments, what I am looking for is a creature's capacity to make it as the world's best oceanic predator.

---

That's utter nonsense. The ocean is filled with microenvironments. Take an animal out of the area that it is capable of living in, and the toughest predator will become....dead. Every animal in the ocean has parts of the ocean where it would die swiftly. That means that there are parts of the ocean where it would be largely nonfunctional, though not explicitly dead. For example, there is an invasive cichlid in south Florida that I did a little work with. Where it was living, it would fight with pretty much anything, even predators many times its size, for food. In a fish tank, the cichlid would attack anything it could identify as being alive, and thereby killed most other fish we put in a tank with it. However, a cold front came through and dropped the temperature into the 50s...and the cichlids died by the thousands. In fact, they are so sensitive to temperature changes that they will never spread further north out of south Florida, as they can't handle the occasional cold snaps.

Currently, I work with Salmon. Put a Chinook down in the same water with that cichlid, and one of the two would be dead very soon, though there would be no competition. Water cold enough for the Chinook would be lethal to the cichlid, whereas water warm enough for the cichlid would kill a Chinook in seconds. Therefore, each has certain requirements that it can't live without. You recognize that water is one of those requirements, as you are not attempting to say whether a lion is tougher than a shark, yet you fail to recognize that two different regions of water are as sharp a division as water is to air. In both cases, only organisms adapted to live in that environment CAN live in that environment. Saying that a lethal zone of the ocean is somehow a lesser distinction than any other lethal habitat simply because it is still wet, is a sophmoric argument. Dead is dead, and an organism that is not in an environment where it can survive is just as dead in one such environment as another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Really? You already determined which was the top predator? All the rest of this must have been just smoke then, and very effective smoke, too, as I can't tell which species you chose after all this writing.

---

Still working out the places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

"Working out which species is dominant" is only a fun part of the challenge if you don't care about being right in your conclusion.

---

Don't agree, just get as much key information as is currently available from science and then apply logic although doing this is a lot of work and there are always some difficulties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Your analysis of the motivations of orcas is downright bizarre, though there does seem to be a use for doing so. It sounds like you are trying to come up with a handicapping scheme for a new 'fantasy' league. Is that what you are doing? Some kind of Fantasy Predators, Ocean Edition? If that isn't the case, then you assigning motives to animals that are totally unfounded, even theoretically. Animals don't get "humiliated". They are all bottome line in their evaluation: Any time you live for another day you are a winner, and there is no second place. That goes just as much for predators as prey, since every single animal performs both roles every day. Only the plants are exclusively prey (and not all of them, either).

---

I brought the point up regarding the Orcas in response to the argument that predators do not attack each other, which is not true, particularly of the ocean where the number of herbivores is very small think manatees for example thus predators eating predators is the norm not the exception. So determining the top predator is a natural extension of the oceanic environment.

Orcas have been documented to kill and then humiliate other predatory species by tossing their corpses around in the water like passing a football in a showy display of dominance. The reason why they behave in such a manner gives some insight into their predicament in the ocean, they are forced into a primarily offensive strategy against an oceanic food chain where they have no means of escaping from the top oceanic predators. It is a rather scary thought and reminds me of the sort of society you were complaining about at the start of this thread focusing on the survival of the fittest and the obviation of compassion and mercy.

By contrast the seals have a chance of escaping onto land from any ocean bound predators which is the sort of advantage that results in a less offensively based society and gives these animals the chance to evolve to some extent away from the extreme harshness of the oceanic food chain. The Sea Otters also have this advantage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That's utter nonsense. The ocean is filled with microenvironments. Take an animal out of the area that it is capable of living in, and the toughest predator will become....dead.

---

I am not asking it to be the top predator on land, it just has to do enough to put its evolutionary design into the foreground to be considered as a potential candidate for top predator regardless of its particular micro-environment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Every animal in the ocean has parts of the ocean where it would die swiftly. That means that there are parts of the ocean where it would be largely nonfunctional, though not explicitly dead. For example, there is an invasive cichlid in south Florida that I did a little work with. Where it was living, it would fight with pretty much anything, even predators many times its size, for food. In a fish tank, the cichlid would attack anything it could identify as being alive, and thereby killed most other fish we put in a tank with it. However, a cold front came through and dropped the temperature into the 50s...and the cichlids died by the thousands. In fact, they are so sensitive to temperature changes that they will never spread further north out of south Florida, as they can't handle the occasional cold snaps.

Currently, I work with Salmon. Put a Chinook down in the same water with that cichlid, and one of the two would be dead very soon, though there would be no competition. Water cold enough for the Chinook would be lethal to the cichlid, whereas water warm enough for the cichlid would kill a Chinook in seconds. Therefore, each has certain requirements that it can't live without.

---

As far as I can tell this does not apply to any of the top oceanic predators currently being examined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

You recognize that water is one of those requirements, as you are not attempting to say whether a lion is tougher than a shark, yet you fail to recognize that two different regions of water are as sharp a division as water is to air. In both cases, only organisms adapted to live in that environment CAN live in that environment. Saying that a lethal zone of the ocean is somehow a lesser distinction than any other lethal habitat simply because it is still wet, is a sophmoric argument. Dead is dead, and an organism that is not in an environment where it can survive is just as dead in one such environment as another.

---

The point of this thread is not to compare lions and sharks, nonetheless, it does sound like an interesting theoretical match up so I will offer a suggested theoretical winner after I have finalised the oceanic predator results.

This thread should have had a poll lol.

In order to determine the top ocean predator I had to compare the primary contenders: the Mako shark, billfish, the fastest regularly toothed fish such as tuna, bonito and Wahoo, non whale mammals such as the seals and the Sea Otter, the whales including dolphins, porpoises, Orcas, Cachalot (Sperm Whale), and old Bluey, sea snakes and sea birds.

The Mako shark by design is the most intimidating creature in the ocean. Rows and rows of razor sharp teeth that never stop growing ensure that it always capable of devouring any prey no matter how tough the skin, bone or flesh. As it is the fastest oceanic shark it is capable of evading the larger Great White and Tiger Sharks and fast enough to prey on the fastest fish such including tuna and many species of billfish. Likewise it has the speed to catch and devour any sea mammal and unlike the sea mammals there is nothing in the design of the shark that prevents it from being classified as a mammal predator. There are only a couple of fish that can potentially swim faster than the Mako and they are the Indo-Pacific Sailfish and the erroneously named, predominantly silver, Black Marlin. Wiki cites the Indo-Pacific Sailfish as the fastest fish in the ocean (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billfish).

Although the fastest billfish are able to herd smack and eat fish smaller than itself, the bill, when used as a sword, is not quite strong enough to present a serious threat to sharks, fish such as tuna or oceanic mammals. This means that a billfish cannot use its superior speed to herd the Mako as it won't take the Mako long to realise the bill is not a serious threat. Unable to use its bill/sword to dominate the Mako it is unable to capitalise on its speed advantage and instead has to live in fear of the Mako which means the fastest fish is not going to make it as the top oceanic predator.

The next group of predators are the fastest fish such as the tuna, bonito, and Wahoo. These fish are fast and capable of behaving like oceanic piranhas to turn sea mammals into easy chow and should not be underestimated. Moreover the fastest species are capable of evading the larger sharks and are bested only by the Mako.

Onto the sea mammals where the obvious design flaw is their teeth as they are not strong enough to allow them to eat sharks regularly which means they cannot be classified as true shark predators. Moreover there are none that are intelligent enough to do their own dental work to overcome this limitation.

In addition to its dental limitations the Orca is not fast enough to escape the Mako or tuna making it look more like sushi than top predator. Furthermore being constantly forced to the surface to breath makes it easy for the Mako and tuna to prey on or escape from the Orcas, making the Mako and tuna the Orca's death from below.

The Cachalot's (Sperm Whale) place in the predatory hierarchy is primarily a function of its teeth. They have the largest set of teeth of any predator in the animal kingdom protruding from its lower jaw; however, it is unclear just how much of a weapon they are against Orcas and baleen whales.

Old Bluey is just too slow to get away from the Mako, tuna and Orca which is why she didn't make it. Same goes for the rest of the Baleen whales.

Next the seals are almost certainly intelligent enough to work out how to cooperate to turn individual sharks on their back to make them easy prey, their main strength is their ability to evade sharks by escaping onto land.

The Sea Otter is arguably the most intelligent and handsome creature in the ocean and the creature that most closely resembles Man and as a result has the most potential of any sea creature that I have looked at. In particular its ability to evade sharks by escaping to land allows it to evolve in a partially sheltered manner away from the harsh and unforgiving oceanic environment. However it still does not have sufficient intelligence to be classified as a true shark predator, and this means the most intelligent oceanic creature, as indicated by using its hand like paws to turn over rocks, crack open shellfish and catch fish, is not going to make it as the top oceanic predator.

In the case of the sea snakes although they produce a potent venom they are nonetheless regular prey for Tiger sharks which means that the most venomous of the top contenders is not going to make it as the top predator.

The sea birds can harass sea mammals using their beaks and talons; however, I don't think they are a threat to the Mako shark, it would have to be a pretty big Pelican.

As a result the top oceanic predator besides man is:

Code:

---

The Mako shark winning by a tooth.

---

Man is the only true mammalian shark predator on the planet mainly as it has sufficient intelligence to overcome any physical limitations in particular being capable of using knives and dentistry to compensate for relatively weaker teeth.

In relation to Shaggy Hiker's extension "whether a lion is tougher than a shark" I suggest that as the Mako is faster than all oceanic mammals then theoretically it has to be faster than Lions too. In addition just like all the oceanic mammals the lion's teeth are going to let it down and not allow it to regularly prey on sharks meaning it is not designed as a true shark predator and cannot overcome this limitation.

The conclusion seems straightforward: Mako > Lions.

Hmm....its seems your analysis is based in far more hypothetical stuff than fact. Case in point: Tuna if they acted like pirannahs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Niya

Hmm....its seems your analysis is based in far more hypothetical stuff than fact. Case in point: Tuna if they acted like pirannahs.

---

While it is true the fastest fish such as tuna and Wahoo don't have the hardware in the teeth department relative to sharks, they are still quite impressive. (eg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB_wgL-TsmA)

well the Orcinus orca are considered to be the apex predators.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale


oh and this one here is the top predator of the ocean..

Maersk Norwich

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8006/7...6a97e87e_z.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justa Lol

well the Orcinus orca are considered to be the apex predators.

---

Thank you for pointing out that Orcas are apex predators; however, most of the animals mentioned in this thread are also considered apex predators including the fastest, the biggest brain, the most gigantic, and the most venomous. The issue is to determine which one of these apex predators, the primary contenders, is the overall top oceanic predator.

Incidentally Orcas are one of the more matriarchal species as the males only live about half as long as the females - imagine what our society would be like if the men only lived to 35 and the women lived to 70.

If you think Orcas are the topmost pelagic predator then you need to make a case for it against all the other contenders.

For example the Cachalot (Sperm Whale), the fully grown males in particular, are not typically cited as prey for Orcas. It might be that the Cachalot with the biggest brain is able to outthink the Orca which only has the second biggest brain, and then use its 40,000 kilogram weight advantage and the largest set of teeth on the planet to bully the 6,000 kilogram Orca around. Moreover it has a collapsable rib cage and specialised tissues to cope with the enormous pressure it is put under when diving which allows it to dive much deeper than Orcas creating a relatively easy means of escape for the Cachalot.

The Cachalot is a more patriarchal species with males living to 70 and females living substantially less.