Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce primate predation by other primate species through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of reducing primate predation by other primate species 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%2F1522https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1522Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:32:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Guard habituated primate groups to ensure their safety/well-being A controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda, and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that a population of mountain gorillas increased over 41 years after being guarded against poachers, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1523https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1523Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:34:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement legal protection for primate species under threat A before-and-after study in India found that following a ban on export of the species, a population of rhesus macaques increased over 17 years. Two studies in Thailand and India found that primate populations declined despite the respective species being legally protected, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Malaysia found that the majority of introduced Müller's Bornean gibbons died despite legal protection, along with other interventions. A site comparison of five sites in Cameroon found that drill populations declined in four sites but increased at one, despite legal protection. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1524https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1524Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:39:16 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide salt licks for primates We found no evidence for the effects of providing salt licks for 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%2F1525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1525Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:40:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regularly and continuously provide supplementary food to primates Two studies in China and The Gambia found that after regularly providing supplementary food, along with other interventions, primate populations increased. Two studies in Thailand and Malaysia found that populations declined after regular provision of supplementary food, alongside other interventions. Three studies in Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia found that the majority of primates survived after being regularly provided supplementary food, along with other interventions. One study in Liberia found that after regular provision of supplementary food, along with other interventions, the majority of introduced chimpanzees survived for at least one year. One controlled study in Madagascar found that after a year of regular food supplimentation, along with other interventions, introduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs showed different diets compared to a resident wild group of the same species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1526https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1526Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:53:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Regularly provide supplementary food to primates during resource scarce periods only One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo found that the majority of chimpanzees survived for at least five years after supplementary feeding in resource scarce periods, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Kenya found that wild olive baboons survived for at least 17 years after supplementary feeding in drought periods soon after translocation, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Madagascar found that the diet of black-and-white ruffed lemurs was similar to that of wild individuals after supplementary feeding in resource scarce periods, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1527https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1527Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:59:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food for a certain period of time only One study in Tanzania found that a chimpanzee population increased after supplementary feeding for two months immediately after reintroduction, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that a golden lion tamarin population declined after one year following supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that an abandoned infant muriqui was retrieved by its mother and rejoined the wild group after supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. Four studies in Brazil, Madagascar, and South Africa found that only a minority of reintroduced primates survived after supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions. One study in Guinea found that the majority of introduced chimpanzees survived for at least 27 months following supplementary feeding, alongside other interventions.. Three studies in Gabon, South Africa and Vietnam found that a majority of primates survived reintroduction while being supplimentry fed alongside other interventions. Two studies in Gabon and the Republic of Congo found that the majority of lowland gorillas survived for at least nine months to four years after provision of supplementary food, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1528Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:13:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations We found no evidence for the effects of providing supplementary food to primates through the establishment of prey populations 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%2F1529https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1529Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:17:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide additional sleeping platforms/nesting sites for primates One before-and-after study in Brazil found that a translocated lion tamarin population declined after artificial nest boxes were provided, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Brazil found that a majority of reintroduced golden lion tamarins died seven years after artificial nest boxes were provided, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that a majority of juvenile western lowland gorillas survived for at least seven years after nesting platforms were provided, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1530https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1530Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:22:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial water sources One before-and-after trial in Brazil found that a minority of reintroduced golden lion tamarins survived over seven years when provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that a minority of reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs survived for five years despite being provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that a minority of vervet monkeys had survived for 10 months when provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. A before-and-after study in Gabon found that a majority of western lowland gorillas survived for at least nine months while being provided with supplementary water, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1531https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1531Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:26:56 +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: Remove alien invasive vegetation where the latter has a clear negative effect on the primate species in question We found no evidence for the effects of removing alien invasive 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%2F1533https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1533Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:35:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce primate predation by non-primate species through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of reducing primate predation by other non-primate species 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%2F1534https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1534Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:37:57 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by humans, through exclusion (e.g. fences) or translocation We found no evidence for the effects of preventing gene contamination by alien primate species introduced by humans, 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%2F1536https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1536Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:41:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear face-masks to avoid transmission of viral and bacterial diseases to primates One study in Uganda found that a confiscated young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being handled by caretakers wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being visited by researchers and visitors wearing face-masks, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1537Thu, 19 Oct 2017 13:58:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep safety distance to habituated animals One before-and-after study in the Democratic Republic of Congo found that most reintroduced chimpanzees survived over five years after being followed from a distance of 5–100 m, alongside other interventions. One controlled study in Malaysia found that the number of reintroduced orangutans declined by 33% over 31 years despite visitors being required to keep a safety distance to the animals, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being observed from a safety distance, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1538https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1538Thu, 19 Oct 2017 14:38:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Limit time that researchers/tourists are allowed to spend with habituated animals One controlled study in Indonesia found that reintroduced Sumatran orangutans that spent limited time with caretakers acted more similar to wild orangutans than orangutans that spend more time with caretakers, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being visited by researchers and visitors during a restricted amount of time, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1539https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1539Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:12:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement quarantine for people arriving at, and leaving the site We found no evidence for the effects of implementing quarantine for people arriving at, and leaving the site 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%2F1540https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1540Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:40:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement quarantine for primates before reintroduction/translocation One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins did not survive over seven years despite being quarantined before release, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that a reintroduced chimpanzee repeatedly returned to human settlements after being quarantined before release, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that most reintroduced black-and-white ruffed lemurs did not survive over five years despite being quarantined before release, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Malaysia found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 40 years despite individuals being quarantined before release, alongside other interventions. A controlled study in Indonesia found that all orangutans that underwent quarantine prior to release, alongside other interventions, survived over three months. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that more than 80% of the reintroduced gorillas that underwent quarantine, alongside other interventions, survived over a ten year period. Two site comparison studies in Vietnam and a before-and-after study in Indonesia found that most reintroduced lorises either died or their radio signal was lost despite being quarantined before release, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1541https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1541Thu, 19 Oct 2017 15:44:09 +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: Regularly disinfect clothes, boots etc. One controlled, before-and-after study in Rwanda, Uganda and Congo found that numbers of mountain gorillas increased by 168% over 41 years while being visited by researchers and tourists whose clothes were disinfected, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1547https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1547Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:33:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Wear gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. We found no evidence for the effects of wearing gloves when handling primate food, tool items, etc. 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%2F1548https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1548Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:41:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Preventative vaccination of habituated or wild primates One before-and-after study in Puerto Rico found that annual mortality of rhesus macaques decreased after a preventive tetanus vaccine campaign, alongside other interventions. Two before-and-after studies in the Republic of Congo found that 70% of reintroduced chimpanzees vaccinated against poliomyelitis and tetanus, alongside other interventions, survived over 3.5-5 years after release. One before-and-after study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that more than 80% of the reintroduced gorillas that received preventive vaccination, alongside other interventions, survived over a 10 year period. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1549https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1549Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:45:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Treat sick/injured animals Two before-and-after studies in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins died despite being treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Brazil found that one out of four reintroduced black lion tamarins died after being release despite receiving treatment, alongside other interventions. One review on reintroduced lar gibbons in Thailand found that their population declined by 6% seventeen months after release despite having medical treatment available when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. One study in Malaysia found that 98% of translocated orangutans, some of which received treatment for injuries along with other interventions, survived capture and subsequent release. One controlled study, also in Malaysia, found that a population of reintroduced orangutans decreased by 33% over 33 years despite receiving treatment when sick or injured, alongside other interventions. Four studies, including two before-and-after studies, in Liberia, the Republic of Congo and The Gambia found that most reintroduced chimpanzees that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived for at least 1-5 years and in one case the population increased. One study in Senegal found that a young chimpanzee was reunited with its mother after being treated for injuries, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Uganda found that treatment for mange, alongside other interventions, cured some infected mountain gorillas. One study in Rwanda, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and one before-and-after, site comparison study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas treated when sick or injured, alongside other interventions, survived over 4–41 years. Two before-and-after studies in South Africa and Indonesia found that most reintroduced or translocated primates that were treated when sick, alongside other interventions, survived over six months. However, two before-and-after studies in Madagascar and Kenya found that most reintroduced or translocated primates did not survived over five years or their population size decreased despite treated when sick, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1550Thu, 19 Oct 2017 18:35:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove/treat external/internal parasites to increase reproductive success/survival One before-and-after study in Brazil found that most reintroduced golden lion tamarins treated for parasites, alongside other interventions, did not survive over seven years post-release. Three studies, including two before-and-after studies, in the Republic of Congo and The Gambia found that 70% of reintroduced chimpanzees treated for parasites, alongside other interventions, survived for at least 3.5-5 years and in one case the population increased. One study in Gabon found that 33% of reintroduced mandrills died within one year after release despite being treated for parasites, alongside other interventions. Two site comparison studies in Vietnam found that most reintroduced pygmy slow lorises died or disappeared (lost radio signal soon after release) despite being treated for parasites, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after, site comparison study in the Republic of Congo and Gabon and one before-and-after study in Gabon found that most western lowland gorillas treated for parasites, alongside other interventions, survived over nine months or four years. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1551https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1551Thu, 19 Oct 2017 19:11:32 +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