Collected 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: Implement continuous health monitoring with permanent vet on site One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that the population size of mountain gorillas that were continuously monitored by vets, alongside other interventions, increased by 168% over 41 years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1554https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1554Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:53:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid contact between wild primates and human-raised primates We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding contact between wild primates and human-raised 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%2F1555https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1555Thu, 19 Oct 2017 20:55:18 +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: Implement a health programme for local communities We found no evidence for the effects of implementing a health programme for local 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%2F1557https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1557Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:07:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate (capture & release) wild primates from development sites to natural habitat elsewhere One study in Malaysia found that the majority of orangutans survived following translocation from a development site to natural habitat, alongside other interventions. Three before-and-after studies in Tanzania, French Guiana, and Madagascar found that a majority of primates survived for 5-30 months following translocation from a development site to natural habitat, alongside other interventions. One study in French Guiana found that a minority of primates survived for at least 18 months. One before-and-after study in India found that rhesus monkeys remained at the sites where they were released following translocation from a development site to natural habitat, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1558https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1558Fri, 20 Oct 2017 09:44:55 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate (capture & release) wild primates from abundant population areas to non-inhabited environments One replicated study in Belize found that the majority of black howler monkeys survived for at least 10 months after translocation from abundant population areas to an uninhabited site, along with other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1559https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1559Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:01:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries We found no evidence for the effects of reducing garbage/solid waste to avoid primate injuries 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%2F1560https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1560Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:02:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove human food waste that may potentially serve as food sources for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with humans We found no evidence for the effects of removing human wastes that may potentially serve as food sources for primates to avoid disease transmission and conflict with humans, 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%2F1561https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1561Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:04:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce noise pollution by restricting development activities to certain times of the day/night We found no evidence for the effects of reducing noise pollution by restricting development activities to certain times of the day/night 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%2F1562https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1562Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:05:33 +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: Allow primates to adapt to local habitat conditions for some time before introduction to the wild Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that reintroduced primate populations were smaller after 12-17 months and one study in Belize found primate populations increased five years after allowing individuals to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, alongside other interventions. One study found that a reintroduced population of black howler monkeys had a birth rate of 20% after they were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, Madagascar, Malaysia, French Guiana, South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to 12 years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Four studies in Belize, Brazil, Gabon, South Africa found that the majority of primates survived for at least four to 12 months. One study in Vietnam found that half of reintroduced pygmy slow lorises survived for at least two months. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that a majority of western lowland gorillas survived for nine months to four years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. Three studies in Liberia and the Congo found that a majority of chimpanzees survived for at least three to five years after allowing them to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after allowing it to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction into the wild, along with other interventions. A study in Indonesia found that Sumatran orangutans that were allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions before introduction performed less well than individuals that were directly released into the forest, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that after being allowed to adapt to local habitat conditions a pair of introduced Bornean agile gibbons had a similar diet to wild gibbons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1564Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:08:36 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Involve local community in primate research and conservation management One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements despite the involvement of local communities in the reintroduction project, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased over 13 years while local communities were involved in the management of the sanctuary, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that mountain gorilla numbers decreased over 41 years despite the implementation of an environmental education programme, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that incidents of gorilla poaching stopped after the implementation of a community-based monitoring scheme, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1565https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1565Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:26:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install billboards to raise primate conservation awareness We found no evidence for the effects of installing billboards to raise primate conservation awareness 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%2F1566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1566Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:28:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reintroduce primates in groups Two studies in Brazil and Thailand found that populations of introduced primates declined after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions, while one study in Belize recorded an increase in populations. Two studies in Madagascar and India found that primate populations persisted 4-55 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a minority of primates survived for at least 15 weeks to seven years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Seven studies in Belize, Brazil, French Guiana, Madagascar, and South Africa found that a majority of primates survived after between two and thirty months. One study in Madagascar found that introduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs Varecia variegata had similar diets to individuals in a wild population after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One study in The Gambia found that a population of introduced chimpanzees increased 25 years after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Four studies in Guinea, Liberia and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of chimpanzees survived for at least two to five years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of western gorillas survived for at least nine months to four years, after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Indonesia found that all Sumatran orangutans survived for at least three months after reintroduction in groups, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1567Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:46:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regularly play TV & radio announcements to raise primate conservation awareness One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced central chimpanzees whose release was broadcasted by multiple media means, alongside other interventions, survived over five years post-reintroduction. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1569https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1569Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:42:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement multimedia campaigns using theatre, film, print media, discussions Two before-and-after studies in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 61-138% over 3–13 years after the implementation of a multimedia campaign or the opening of a museum for wildlife education, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in Brazil and Colombia found that the implementation of education programs focusing on tamarins improved attitudes towards- and knowledge about tamarins. One study in the Republic of Congo found that large numbers of people were informed about lowland gorillas through multimedia campaigns using theatre and film. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that poaching of diademed sifakas and black and white ruffed lemurs appeared to have ceased after the distribution of conservation books in local primary schools. One before-and-after study in India found that numbers of hoolock gibbons increased by 66% over five years after the implementation of an education and awareness programme, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in four African countries found that the level of knowledge about primates of visitors to a sanctuary housing guenons, mangabeys, chimpanzees and bonobos increased after the implementation of an education programme. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1571https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1571Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:45:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Integrate religion/local taboos into conservation education We found no evidence for the effects of integrating religion/local taboos into conservation education. '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%2F1574https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1574Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:30:22 +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: Legally protect primate habitat A review on the status of rhesus monkeys and grey snub-monkeys in China found that primate numbers increased or no more individuals were killed after the area was legally protected, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Kenya found that Tana River red colobus monkey and crested mangabey numbers decreased despite the area being declared legally protected, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in China found that Hainan gibbon numbers increased by 34% over nine years after the area was declared legally protected. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years despite being reintroduced to a legally protected area, alongside other interventions yet they reproduced and surviving offspring partly compensated adult mortality. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most central chimpanzees and lowland gorillas reintroduced to areas that received legal protection, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–5 years. One controlled, site comparison study in Mexico found that black howler monkeys in protected areas had lower stress levels than individuals living in unprotected forest fragments. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1578https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1578Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:49:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish areas for conservation which are not protected by national or international legislation (e.g. private sector standards & codes) One before-and-after study in Rwanda and Republic of Congo found that mountain gorilla numbers increased by 15% over five years after the implementation of a conservation project funded by a consortium of organizations, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that black howler monkey numbers increased by 138% over 13 years after being protected by the local community, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1579https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1579Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:57:53 +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
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue