Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming (organic, LEAF marque) We have captured no evidence for the effects of implementing food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming (organic, LEAF marque) on farmland wildlife. '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%2F71https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F71Mon, 24 Oct 2011 21:01:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement a minimum number of roads (& minimize secondary roads) needed to reach mining extraction sites We found no evidence for the effects of implementing a minimum number of roads needed to reach mining sites 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%2F1462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1462Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:52:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement no-hunting seasons for primates We found no evidence for the effects of implementing no-hunting seasons 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%2F1467https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1467Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:25:05 +0100Collected 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: 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: 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: 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: Implement a ‘no-feeding of wild primates’ policy One controlled, before-and-after study in Japan found that several previously increasing Japanese macaque populations declined in size and productivity after limiting and then prohibiting food provisioning. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1502https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1502Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:59:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement birth control to stabilize primate community/population size We found no evidence for the effects of implementing birth control to stabilize primate community/population size 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%2F1521https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1521Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:32:20 +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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Implement ‘mosaic management’ when harvesting wild biological resources We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of implementing mosaic management when harvesting wild biological resources. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2F1747https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1747Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:28:42 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic species We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of implementing biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic species. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2F1767https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1767Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:40:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing quarantine to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2156https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2156Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:07:04 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of disease or non-native or problem species We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing regular inspections to avoid accidental introduction of disease, non-native or problem species on subtidal benthic invertebrate populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2157https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2157Tue, 22 Oct 2019 12:07:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement rapid response plans for stranded mammals following extreme events We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing rapid response plans for stranded mammals following extreme events. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2F2911https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2911Mon, 08 Feb 2021 16:20:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement ‘mosaic management’ when harvesting wild vegetationWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of implementing mosaic management when harvesting wild vegetation from marshes or swamps. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2F3013https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3013Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:20:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic speciesWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of implementing biosecurity measures to prevent introductions of problematic species to marshes or swamps. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated 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%2F3082https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3082Fri, 02 Apr 2021 17:02:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement multi-species management strategies We found no studies that evaluated the effects of implementing multi-species management strategies on marine fish populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this intervention during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore, we have no evidence to indicate whether or not the intervention has any desirable or harmful effects. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3824https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3824Fri, 27 May 2022 09:02:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement multi-year or long-term management strategies One study examined the effects of implementing multi-year or long-term management strategies on marine fish populations. The study was worldwide. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Stock status (1 study): One worldwide study found that commercial fisheries with multi-year or long-term management plans in place, among other management and governance strategies, had stocks that were more likely to be sustainable and less likely to be in decline compared to fisheries typically without long-term objectives. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3825https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3825Fri, 27 May 2022 09:04:24 +0100