Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement road blocks to inspect cars for illegal primate bushmeat We found no evidence for the effects of implementing road blocks to inspect cars for illegal primate bushmeat 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%2F1470https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1470Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:31:04 +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: Provide medicine to local communities to control killing of primates for medicinal purposes We found no evidence for the effects of providing medicine to local communities to control the killing of primates for medicinal purposes 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%2F1472https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1472Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:33:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Introduce ammunition tax We found no evidence for the effects of introducing ammunition tax 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%2F1473https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1473Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:54:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inspect bushmeat markets for illegal primate species We found no evidence for the effects of inspecting bushmeat markets for illegal primate species 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%2F1474https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1474Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:59:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regularly de-activate/remove ground snares One before-and-after study in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda found that mountain gorilla numbers increased over five years in an area that was patrolled for snares, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda found that a mountain gorilla population declined in an area where snares were removed regularly, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Ghana found that the number of snares declined in an area where they were regularly removed, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1475Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:15:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide better equipment (e.g. guns) to anti-poaching ranger patrols One before-and-after study in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda found that gorilla populations increased after anti-poaching guard were provided with better equipment, alongside other interventions. One study in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed for 21 months after game guards were provided with better equipment, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda found that the number of immature gorillas increased and the number of snares decreased after anti-poaching patrols were supplied with better equipment, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1476https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1476Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:22:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide training to anti-poaching ranger patrols One study in Uganda found that no gorillas were killed over 21 months after game guards received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda found that the number of immature gorillas increased in areas where game guards received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in India found that a population of hoolock gibbons increased after sanctuary staff received training, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that no incidents of primate poaching occurred over a three year period after anti-poaching rangers were trained, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1477https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1477Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:30:03 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement local no-hunting community policies/traditional hunting ban One review found that very few snub nosed monkeys were killed annually at a site in China where it is forbidden to kill wildlife. One controlled study in the Democratic Republic of Congo found that a lowland gorilla population increased after the implementation of a local hunting ban. One before-and-after study in Belize found that an introduced black howler monkey population increased over time in an area where hunting was controlled, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Cameroon found that a drill population increased in numbers after being protected by a hunting ban, alongside other interventions. A study in Nigeria found that populations of Sclater’s monkey increased in an area where hunting of the species was prohibited by local taboos. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1478https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1478Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:40:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Strengthen/support/re-install traditions/taboos that forbid the killing of primates One site comparison in Laos found that Laotian black crested gibbons occurred at higher densities in areas where they were protected by a local hunting taboo than at sites were there was no taboo. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1479https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1479Tue, 17 Oct 2017 18:52:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Inform hunters of the dangers (e.g., disease transmission) of wild primate meat We found no evidence for the effects of informing hunters of the dangers of wild primate meat 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%2F1480https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1480Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:02:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement monitoring surveillance strategies (e.g. SMART) or use monitoring data to improve effectiveness of wildlife law enforcement patrols One before-and-after study in Nigeria found that more gorillas and chimpanzees were observed after the implementation of law enforcement and a monitoring system. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1481https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1481Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:05:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement community control of patrolling, banning hunting and removing snares A site comparison study in the Democratic Republic of Congo found that community control was more effective at reducing illegal bushmeat hunting, including primates, compared to the nearby national park. A before-and-after study in Cameroon found that no incidents of gorilla poaching occurred over three years after implementation of community control and monitoring of illegal activities. A site comparison study in Nigeria found that there were more gorillas and chimpanzees in an area managed by a community conservation organisation than in areas not managed by local communities. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1482https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1482Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:12:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide sustainable alternative livelihoods; establish fish- or domestic meat farms We found no evidence for the effects of providing sustainable alternative livelihoods; establish fish- or domestic meat farms 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%2F1483https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1483Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:16:14 +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: Use selective logging instead of clear-cutting One site comparison in Sierra Leone found that primate densities were higher in forest that had been logged at low intensity than in a forest logged at high intensity. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that the number of lemurs increased following selective logging. One site comparison study in Uganda found that primate densities were similar in forest that had been logged at low intensity and forest logged at high intensity. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1485https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1485Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:26:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using patch retention harvesting instead of clear-cutting 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%2F1486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1486Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:29:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement small and dispersed logging compartments We found no evidence for the effects of implementing small and dispersed logging compartments 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%2F1487https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1487Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:31:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting We found no evidence for the effects of using shelter wood cutting instead of clear-cutting 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%2F1488https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1488Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:33:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Leave hollow trees in areas of selective logging for sleeping sites We found no evidence for the effects of leaving hollow trees in 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%2F1489https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1489Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:35:30 +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: Thin trees within forests We found no evidence for the effects of thinning trees within forests 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%2F1491https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1491Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:39:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manually control or remove secondary mid-storey and ground-level vegetation We found no evidence for the effects of manually controlling or removing secondary mid-storey and ground-level vegetation 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%2F1492https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1492Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:41:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation We found no evidence for the effects of avoiding slashing climbers/lianas, trees housing them, hemi-epiphytic figs, and ground vegetation 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%2F1493https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1493Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Avoid/minimize logging of important food tree species for primates One before-and-after study in Belize found that a black howler monkey population increased over 13 years after trees important for food for the species were preserved, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1494https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1494Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:45:17 +0100