Action

Plant indigenous trees to re-establish natural tree communities in clear-cut areas

How is the evidence assessed?

Source countries

Key messages

  • One site comparison study in Kenya found that two out of three primate species had lower group densities in planted forests than in natural forests.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A site comparison in 2006-2010 in natural and planted forest in Kakamega Forest, Kenya found that black and white colobus Colobus guereza achieved similar average group densities but smaller group size in planted as in natural forest but group densities of blue monkey Cercopithecus mitis and redtail monkey Cercopithecus ascanius were 42-45% lower in planted forest than in natural forest. Black and white colobus average group sizes in planted forest were 33% smaller than in natural forest, resulting in a population that was 35% smaller in size compared to those in natural forest. No statistical tests were carried out to determine whether these differences were significant. Natural forest included old secondary forest that connected to the remaining natural old-growth forest. Planted forest included mixed indigenous trees planted in 1930-1940 in areas where natural vegetation had been clear-cut. Monkey density was estimated based on transect observations in both forest types using the ‘Whitesides’ and ‘Distance’ methods. Transects followed pre-existing footpaths or dirt roads.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Junker, J., Kühl, H.S., Orth, L., Smith, R.K., Petrovan, S.O. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Primate Conservation. Pages 431-482 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Primate Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Primate Conservation
Primate Conservation

Primate Conservation - Published 2017

Primate Synopsis

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust