Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Discourage the planting of fruit trees and vegetable gardens on the urban edge We found no evidence for the effects of discouraging the planting of fruit trees and vegetable gardens on the urban edge 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%2F1424https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1424Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:27:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create natural habitat islands within agricultural land We found no evidence for the effects of creating natural habitat islands within agricultural land 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%2F1425https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1425Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:30:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Compensate farmers for produce loss caused by primates We found no evidence for the effects of compensating farmers for produce loss caused by primates 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%2F1428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1428Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:49:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Change of crop (i.e. to a crop less palatable to primates) We found no evidence for the effects of changing the crop to a less palatable crop 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%2F1439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1439Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:47:53 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Destroy habitat within buffer zones to make them unusable for primates We found no evidence for the effects of destroying habitat within buffer zones to make them unusable for primate 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%2F1441https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1441Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:13:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Chase crop raiding primates using dogs We found no evidence for the effects of using dogs to chase crop raiding primates away 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%2F1444https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1444Tue, 17 Oct 2017 11:19:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/preserve primate habitat on islands before dam construction We found no evidence for the effects of creating/preserving primate habitat on islands before dam construction 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%2F1455https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1455Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:04:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Encourage use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns We found no evidence for the effects of encouraging the use of traditional hunting methods rather than using guns 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%2F1469https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1469Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:29:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct regular anti-poaching patrols Two studies in Rwanda found that gorilla populations increased after implementing regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions. One study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda found that gorilla populations declined after conducting regular anti-poaching patrols. A review on gorillas in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed over a 21 month period when the number of guards carrying out anti-poaching patrols increased, alongside other interventions. One study in Ghana found a reduction in illegal primate hunting activities following conducting regular anti-poaching patrols, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1471https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1471Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Employ hunters in the conservation sector to reduce their impact We found no evidence for the effects of employing hunters in the conservation sector to reduce their impact 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%2F1484https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1484Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:18:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Clear open patches in the forest We found no evidence for the effects of clearing open patches in the forest 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%2F1490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1490Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:37:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Close non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete We found no evidence for the effects of closing non-essential roads as soon as logging operations are complete 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%2F1496https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1496Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:48:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Do not allow people to consume food within natural areas where primates can view them We found no evidence for the effects of not allowing people to consume food within natural areas where primates can view them 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%2F1508https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1508Wed, 18 Oct 2017 15:06:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Coppice trees We found no evidence for the effects of coppicing trees 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%2F1513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1513Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:08:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control inter-specific competition for food through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling inter-specific competition for food through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1520https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1520Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:31:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control habitat-altering mammals (e.g. elephants) through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of controlling habitat-altering mammals through exclusion or translocation 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%2F1532https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1532Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:29:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Ensure that researchers/tourists are up-to-date with vaccinations and healthy One controlled study in Malaysia found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years despite staff and volunteers having received medical checks, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo found that mountain gorilla numbers increased by 168% over 41 years while sick/unwell researchers and visitors were not allowed to visit gorillas, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1546https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1546Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:30:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Control 'reservoir' species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources We found no evidence for the effects of controlling ‘reservoir’ species to reduce parasite burdens/pathogen sources 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%2F1552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1552Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:12:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Conduct veterinary screens of animals before reintroducing/translocating them One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years, despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that most reintroduced black lion tamarins that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over four months. One before-and-after study in Malaysia found that 90% of reintroduced Müller's Bornean gibbons did not survive despite undergoing veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced Bornean agile gibbons that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, behaved similarly to wild gibbons. Two studies, including one controlled, in Malaysia and Indonesia found that most translocated orangutans that underwent veterinary screens, along with other interventions, survived translocation and the first three months post-translocation. Four studies, including three before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republilc of Congo and Guinea found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived over 1-5 years. One before and after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in Belize, French Guiana, Madagascar, Congo and Gabon found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that underwent veterinary screens, alongside other interventions, survived at least four months or increased in population size. Five studies, including four before-and-after studies, in French Guiana, Madagascar, South Africa and Vietnam found that most reintroduced or translocated primates were assumed to have died post-release despite undergoing pre-release veterinary screens, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Kenya found that a population of translocated olive baboons were still surviving 16 years after translocation when veterinary screens were applied alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1553Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:15:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Detect & report dead primates and clinically determine their cause of death to avoid disease transmission One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years when dead chimpanzees were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in French Guiana found that most translocated white-faced sakis survived over four months when dead sakis were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most black-and-white ruffed lemurs did not survive over five years despite the fact that dead lemurs were clinically examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that the population size of mountain gorillas where dead animals were examined to determine the cause of death, alongside other interventions, increased by 168% over 41 years. One before-and-after, site comparison study in Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas survived over four years when dead individuals were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. Two studies, including a before-and-after, in Vietnam and Indonesia found that most reintroduced pygmy slow lorises either died or disappeared despite the fact that dead lorises were examined to determine their cause of death, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1556Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:58:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Educate local communities about primates and sustainable use One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that numbers of drills increased after the implementation of an education programme, alongside one other intervention. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1563https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1563Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:07:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create buffer zones around protected primate habitat We found no evidence for the effects of creating buffer zones around protected primate habitat 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%2F1577https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1577Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:45:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/protect habitat corridors One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 138% over 13 years after the protection of a forest corridor, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1580https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1580Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:58:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create/protect forest patches in highly fragmented landscapes One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 138% over 13 years after the protection of forest along property boundaries and across cleared areas, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1581https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1581Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:01:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Demarcate and enforce boundaries of protected areas We found no evidence for the effects of demarcating and enforcing boundaries of protected 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%2F1582https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1582Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:04:42 +0100
What Works 2021 cover

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, 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 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust