Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter primates We found no evidence for the effects of paying farmers to cover the costs of non-harmful strategies to deter 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%2F1429https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1429Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:51:35 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields We found no evidence for the effects of planting nesting trees/shelter for primates within agricultural fields 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%2F1431https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1431Tue, 17 Oct 2017 09:54:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install mechanical barriers to deter primates (e.g. fences, ditches) We found no evidence for the effects of installing mechanical barriers to prevent primates from entering agricultural areas and raiding crops 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%2F1436https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1436Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:22:52 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops favoured by primates away from primate areas We found no evidence for the effects of planting crops favoured by primates away from primate areas on 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%2F1440https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1440Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:49:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Minimize ground vibrations caused by open cast mining activities We found no evidence for the effects of minimizing ground vibrations caused by open cast mining activities 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%2F1451https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1451Tue, 17 Oct 2017 12:53:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install green bridges (overpasses) We found no evidence for the effects of installing green bridges 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%2F1456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1456Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:15:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install rope or pole (canopy) bridges One study in Brazil found that black lion tamarins and capuchins used a pole bridge to cross a road. One before-and-after study in Belize found that a black howler monkey population increased after the construction of pole bridges over man-made gaps. One before-and-after study in Madagascar found that all six monitored lemur species used bridges to cross roads and pipelines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1457Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:28:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose fines for breaking the speed limit or colliding with primates We found no evidence for the effects of imposing fines for breaking the speed limit or colliding with 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%2F1460https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1460Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:37:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install speed bumps to reduce vehicle collisions with primates We found no evidence for the effects of installing speed bumps to reduce vehicle collisions with 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%2F1465https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1465Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:11:01 +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: 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: 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: 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: Incorporate forested corridors or buffers into logged areas We found no evidence for the effects of incorporating forested corridors or buffers into logged 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%2F1495https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1495Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:47:01 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins We found no evidence for the effects of installing ‘primate-proof’ garbage bins 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%2F1505https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1505Tue, 17 Oct 2017 20:06:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Permanent presence of staff/manager One before-and-after study in Kenya found that numbers of Tana River red colobus and crested mangabeys decreased despite permanent presence of reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One study in Thailand found that a reintroduced population of lar gibbons declined over three years despite permanent presence of reserve staff alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Belize found that numbers of black howler monkeys increased by 138% over 13 years after introducing permanent presence of reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Congo found that most reintroduced central chimpanzees survived over five years after being accompanied by reserve staff, alongside other interventions. One before-and-after study in Gabon found that most reintroduced western lowland gorillas survived over nine months, after being accompanied by reserve staff, alongside other interventions. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1517https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1517Thu, 19 Oct 2017 09:22:48 +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: 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: 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: 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: Plant indigenous trees to re-establish natural tree communities in clear-cut areas One site comparison study in Kenya found that two out of three primate species had lower group densities in planted forests than in natural forests. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1584Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:07:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant indigenous fast-growing trees (will not necessarily resemble original community) in clear-cut areas We found no evidence for the effects of planting indigenous fast-growing trees in clear-cut 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%2F1586https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1586Fri, 20 Oct 2017 13:09:25 +0100