Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected 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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities We found no evidence for the effects of using weeding to promote regeneration of indigenous tree communities on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1588Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:10:24 +0100