Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Soil: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsOrganic matter (12 studies): One meta-analysis of studies from Mediterranean-type climates and ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more organic matter (mostly measured as carbon) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in organic matter in soils with or without winter cover crops (sometimes more, sometimes less). Nutrients (22 studies) Nitrogen (21 studies): Ten replicated, randomized, controlled studies (two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found less nitrogen in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Ten replicated, controlled studies (nine randomized, two before-and-after) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops (but see the paragraphs, below, for distinctions between different forms of nitrogen). Phosphorus (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of phosphorus in soils with or without winter cover crops. Potassium (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from the USA found an increase in potassium in soils with winter cover crops, and no increase in soils without them. Soil organisms (12 studies) Microbial biomass (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more microbial biomass in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study from Italy found inconsistent differences in microbial biomass (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with or without winter cover crops. Nematodes (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One of these studies also found a higher ratio of bacteria-feeding nematodes to fungus-feeding nematodes in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them. Earthworms (2 studies): One replicated, controlled study from the USA found more earthworms in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. One replicated site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of earthworms in soils with or without winter cover crops. Bacteria and fungi (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found more bacteria and fungi in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more spores and species of beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Soil erosion and aggregation (4 studies) Soil erosion (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from Israel and the USA found less erosion of soils with cover crops, compared to soils with fallows or bare soils. Soil aggregation (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found more water-stable soil aggregates in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. Greenhouse gases (5 studies) Carbon dioxide (5 studies): Three controlled studies (two replicated and randomized) from Italy and the USA found similar amounts of carbon dioxide in soils with or without cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more carbon dioxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Carbon storage (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found more carbon accumulation in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Nitrous oxide (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found more nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found similar amounts of nitrous oxide in soils with cover crops or fallows. Implementation options (9 studies): Five studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found more nitrogen in soils that were cover cropped with legumes, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found inconsistent differences in nitrogen (sometimes more, sometimes less) between soils with different cover crops. One study from the USA found no differences in phosphorus or microbial biomass between soils with different cover crops. One study from Italy found differences in beneficial fungi (mycorrhizae) between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found higher soil quality in plots with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1345Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:10:16 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add compost to the soilCrop yield (8 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher crop yields in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, in some comparisons or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without added compost. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found similar crop yields in plots with or without added compost. Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one study found higher yields of barley straw in plots with added compost, compared to plots without added compost, and one study did not. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar crop yields in plots with added compost that did or did not also have added fertilizer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1346Thu, 09 Mar 2017 17:05:03 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add manure to the soilCrop yield (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Greece found higher maize yields in plots with added manure, compared to plots without added manure, in two of three comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Italy found similar nectarine yields in plots with or without added manure. Crop quality (0 studies) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1347Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:57:28 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add sewage sludge to the soilCrop yield (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher barley yields in plots with added sewage sludge, compared to plots without it. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher barley yields in plots with low amounts of added sewage sludge, but not high amounts, compared to plots without added sewage sludge. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1348https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1348Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:58:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Add slurry to the soilCrop yield (6 studies): Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found higher crop yields in plots with added pig slurry, compared to plots without it, in some comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Implementation options (4 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found similar crop yields in plots with digested pig slurry, compared to untreated pig slurry. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found lower crop yields in plots with less pig slurry, compared to more, but another found similar crop yields with different amounts of pig slurry. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1349https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1349Mon, 20 Mar 2017 12:04:53 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use organic fertilizer instead of inorganicCrop yield (11 studies) Food crops (10 studies): Four replicated studies (three controlled, two randomized; one site comparison) from Italy and Spain found higher yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found lower yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic fertilizer, in some or all comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Greece and Spain found similar yields in plots with organic or inorganic fertilizer. Forage crops (1 study): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found higher alfalfa yields in plots with organic fertilizer, compared to inorganic, in one of two comparisons. Crop quality (0 studies) Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1350https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1350Mon, 20 Mar 2017 16:57:26 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsCrop yield (24 studies): Six replicated, controlled studies (five randomized) from Spain and the USA found lower cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Three replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Eight replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields (sometimes higher, sometimes lower) between plots with or without cover crops. Seven controlled studies (six replicated, four randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without cover crops. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop yields between plots with or without summer cover crops. Crop quality (6 studies): Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Spain, and the USA found no differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Two controlled studies (one replicated and randomized) from the USA found some differences in tomato quality between plots with winter cover crops or fallows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found inconsistent differences in cash crop quality between plots with or without winter cover crops. Implementation options (9 studies): Eight studies from Italy, Spain, and the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had legumes as winter cover crops, compared to non-legumes. One study from the USA found higher cash crop yields in plots that had a mixture of legumes and grasses, compared to legumes alone. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1351Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:54:49 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyardsCrop yield (11 studies) Grapes (8 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from France and the USA found lower grape yields in plots that were seeded with grass between the vine rows, compared to plots with bare soil between the vine rows, in some or all comparisons. Six replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the USA found similar grape yields in plots with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (3 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found higher chestnut yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover, but found no difference in chestnut yields between plots with seeded cover crops and plots without ground cover. One of these studies also found higher mushroom yields in plots with resident vegetation, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found lower avocado yields in plots that were seeded with grasses and legumes, compared to plots with bare soil. Crop quality (8 studies) Grapes (6 studies): Five replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy, Portugal, and the USA found similar sugar contents in grapes with or without ground cover between the vine rows. Three of these studies found similar pH levels, and two of these studies found no differences in titratable acidity, but two of these studies found lower titratable acidity in grapes with ground cover between the vine rows. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found heavier grapes with ground cover between the vine rows, but two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Italy and Spain did not. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal and Spain found other differences in grape quality with ground cover between the vine rows. Other crops (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Portugal found larger chestnuts in plots with ground cover, compared to plots without ground cover. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Chile found no difference in avocado quality in plots with or without ground cover. Implementation options (6 studies) Ground cover (5 studies) Grapes (3 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields in plots with different types of ground cover. However, this study found lighter-weight clusters of grapes in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation, in one of three years, and found inconsistent differences in cluster weights between plots with different types of seeded cover crops. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found other differences in grape quality between plots with different types of ground cover. Other crops (2 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Portugal found lower chestnut yields in plots with seeded cover crops, compared to resident vegetation. One of these studies also found smaller chestnuts and lower mushroom yields. Tillage (2 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found higher grape yields, and heavier grape clusters, in plots without tillage between the vine rows, in one of six comparisons. Another replicated, randomized, controlled study from the USA found similar grape yields, with or without tillage between the vine rows. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1352Thu, 23 Mar 2017 09:24:58 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use crop rotationsCrop yield (8 studies): Four replicated, controlled studies (three randomized) from Italy, Spain, and Turkey found higher crop yields in plots with rotations, compared to monocultures, in some comparisons. Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Australia, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without rotations. Crop quality (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found more protein in wheat that was grown in rotation, compared to continuously-grown wheat. Implementation options (2 studies): One study from the USA found higher tomato yields in four-year rotations, compared to two-year rotations. One study from Italy found higher wheat yields in rotations with beans, compared to clover. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1354https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1354Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:02:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Crop production: Use no tillage in arable fieldsCrop yield (23 studies) Crops (22 studies): Eight replicated, controlled studies (seven randomized) from Italy and Spain found higher crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Seven replicated, controlled studies (six randomized) from Italy, Lebanon, Spain, and the USA found lower crop yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some or all comparisons. Four replicated, randomized controlled studies from Italy and Spain found inconsistent differences in crop yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Three replicated, controlled studies (two randomized) from Italy, Portugal, and Spain found similar crop yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop residues (5 studies): Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Lebanon and Spain found higher straw yields in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found inconsistent straw yields (sometimes higher with no tillage, sometimes lower). Two replicated, controlled studies (one randomized) from Italy and Spain found similar straw yields in plots with or without tillage. Crop quality (6 studies): One replicated, controlled study from Italy found less protein in wheat grains from plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found heavier cereal grains in plots with no tillage, compared to conventional tillage. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain found other differences in crop quality, but two replicated, controlled studies from Italy and the USA did not. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1355Tue, 18 Apr 2017 14:10:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Water: Grow cover crops in arable fieldsWater use (2 studies): Of two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain, one found that cover crops used more water than bare fallows, and one found no difference in water use. Water availability (16 studies) Water content (9 studies): Seven replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found less water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. Two replicated, randomized, controlled studies from the USA found more water in soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some comparisons. Water loss (6 studies): Five controlled studies (four replicated, three randomized) from France, Israel, Spain, and the USA found that less water was lost (through drainage, runoff, or evaporation) from plots with cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some or all comparisons. One replicated, randomized, controlled study from Spain found that more water was lost through drainage from plots with winter cover crops, compared to plots without them, in some comparisons. Water infiltration (3 studies): Of two replicated, controlled studies from the USA, one found that more water filtered into soils with cover crops, and one found no difference in infiltration between plots with or without winter cover crops. One controlled study from the USA found that more water percolated deep into the soil in part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to part with a winter fallow. Pathogens and pesticides (1 study): One replicated, controlled study from France found that less herbicide was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them. Nutrients (5 studies): Four replicated, randomized, controlled studies from Spain and the USA found that less nitrate was leached from soils with winter cover crops, compared to soils without them, in some or all comparisons. One controlled study from the USA found that similar amounts of nitrate were leached from part of a field with a winter cover crop and part with a winter fallow. This study also found less ammonium and dissolved carbon, but more phosphorus, in runoff from the part with the winter cover crop, in some comparisons. Sediments (1 study): One controlled study from the USA found less suspended sediment in runoff from part of a field with a winter cover crop, compared to a winter fallow, in some comparisons. Implementation options (5 studies): One study from Spain found more water in soils with long-term cover crops, compared to short-term, in some comparisons. Two studies from Spain and the USA found differences in water availability between plots with different cover crops. One study from Spain found differences in nitrate leaching between plots with different cover crops. One study from the USA found similar infiltration rates under different cover crops.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1357Thu, 04 May 2017 13:33:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore habitat corridors We found no evidence for the effects of restoring habitat corridors on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1583Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:06:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant indigenous trees to re-establish natural tree communities in clear-cut areas 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. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1584Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:07:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant indigenous fast-growing trees (will not necessarily resemble original community) in clear-cut areas We found no evidence for the effects of planting indigenous fast-growing trees in clear-cut areas on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1586Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:09:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities We found no evidence for the effects of using weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:10:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates as single/multiple individuals One study in Tanzania found that a reintroduced population of chimpanzees increased in size after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One study in Senegal found that an infant chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that populations of reintroduced primates declined after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. Four studies in French Guiana, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam found that a minority of primates survived after between two months and one year after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One study in Vietnam found that half of introduced primates survived after two months. One study in Brazil found that an abandoned infant muriqui was reunited with its mother after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One study in Indonesia found that Bornean agile gibbons had similar behaviour and diet to wild populations after reintroduction as single/multiple individuals, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Malaysia found that a reintroduced population of orangutans declined in size after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. One study in Malaysia found that 98% of orangutans survived release after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1589https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1589Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:18:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is absent One study in The Gambia found that a population of reintroduced chimpanzees increased over 25 years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that all Sumatran orangutans survived for at least three months after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that a majority of reintroduced gorillas survived for at least four years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One study in Thailand found that a reintroduced population of lar gibbons declined over three years following reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. One study in India found that a population of reintroduced rhesus monkeys persisted for at least four years after reintroduction. Six studies (including four before-and-after studies) in Belize, Gabon, Madagascar, Malaysia, South Africa, and Vietnam found that a majority of primates survived for two to thirty months after reintroduction into habitat where the species was absent, alongside other interventions. Two studies in Malaysia and Vietnam found that a minority of primates survived after between three months and 12 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1590Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat where the species is present Four before-and-after studies in Guinea and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of reintroduced chimpanzees survived for at least one to five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while a study in Senegal found that a reintroduced chimpanzee was reunited with its mother. One study in Malaysia found that a majority of reintroduced orangutans survived reintroduction intro habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Malaysia found that a reintroduced population of orangutans had declined 33 years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Belize found that primate population increased five years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions, while one study in Thailand found that primate population declined post-reintroduction. Six studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Indonesia, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least fifteen weeks to seven years after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Five studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Gabon, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived for at least two months to one year. Two controlled studies in Madagascar and Indonesia found that reintroduced primates had similar diets to individuals in wild populations after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced primates showed similar behaviour to wild individuals after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that a reintroduced muriqui rejoined a wild group after reintroduction into habitat where the species was present, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1591https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1591Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:46:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat without predators One study in Tanzania found that a population of reintroduced chimpanzees increased over 16 years following reintroduction into habitat without predators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1592https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1592Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:15:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates into habitat with predators Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most golden lion tamarins reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, did not survive over one to seven years but reproduced succesfully. Three studies, including two before-and-after studies, in the Congo, The Gambia and Guinea, found that most chimpanzees reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over one to five years or increased population numbers. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over nine months. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most black-and-white ruffed lemurs reintroduced into habitat with predators did not survive over five years. One study in Madagascar found that all reintroduced lemurs survived over 30 months after being released into habitat with predators, along with other interventions. One study in Gabon found that most mandrills reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over 30 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa found that most vervet monkeys reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. Two studies, including one before-and-after study, in Vietnam and Indonesia found that most lorises reintroduced into habitat with predators, alongside other interventions, were assumed dead within approximately one year after being released. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1593https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1593Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:16:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and reared in cages One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins that were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not survive over seven years or had a higher mortality than wild-born tamarins. One controlled study in French Guiana found that more squirrel monkeys which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, died or were returned to captivity post-reintroduction compared to wild-born monkeys. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs which were born and reared in cages, alongside other interventions, did not overlap with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1594Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:33:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: limited free-ranging experience One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, died over five years. One before-and-after and site comparison and one before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced western lowland gorillas with limited free-ranging experience, alongside other interventions, survived over a period of between nine months and four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1595Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:36:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Captive breeding and reintroduction of primates into the wild: born and raised in a free-ranging environment One before-and-after study in Brazil found that only two out of three reintroduced black lion tamarins survived over four months, despite being raised in a free-ranging environment, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs that were born and raised in a free-ranging environment alongside other interventions, overlapped with that of wild lemurs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1596Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:44:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rehabilitate injured/orphaned primates One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years, despite being rehabilitated, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa found that most reintroduced vervet monkeys survived over six months after being rehabilitated before release, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over 3.5–5 years after undergoing pre-release rehabilitation, alongside other interventions. One study in The Gambia found that numbers of reintroduced chimpanzees that underwent pre-release rehabilitation, alongside other interventions, increased by 38% over 25 years. One review on bonobos, chimpanzees and gorillas in 13 African countries found that rehabilitated bonobos living in sanctuaries did not reproduce but the reproductive rate of chimpanzees was 14% and of gorillas was 2%. One controlled study in Indonesia found that Bornean agile gibbons that were rehabilitated before release, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild gibbons. One controlled study in Malaysia found that numbers of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years, despite orangutans being rehabilitated before release. One controlled study in Indonesia found that most translocated orangutans that were rehabilitated before release, along with other interventions, survived over three months. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas that were rehabilitated before release, alongside other interventions, survived over four years. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that one out of two western lowland gorillas that were reintroduced died despite being rehabilitated, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1597Fri, 20 Oct 2017 14:47:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Fostering appropriate behaviour to facilitate rehabilitation Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over 1–7 years, despite being fostered to survive in the wild, alongside other interventions but in one study they reproduced successfully which partly compensated mortality. Two before-and-after studies in Liberia and Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that were fostered to facilitate reintroduction, alongside other interventions, survived over 1-3.5 years. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements despite being fostered to facilitate reintroduction, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced orangutans that were fostered natural behaviour, alongside other interventions, did not act more like wild orangutans than individuals that were not fostered. One study in Indonesia found that reintroduced orangutans that were fostered to facilitate reintroduction, alongside other interventions, fed on fewer plant species and spent more time building nests. One site comparison study in Vietnam found that all reintroduced pygmy slow lorises were assumed dead despite being fostered natural behaviour prior to release, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1600Fri, 20 Oct 2017 15:00:07 +0100