Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose restrictions on cave visits Four studies evaluated the effects of imposing restrictions on cave visits on bat populations. One study was in each of the USA, Canada, Madagascar, and Turkey. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two before-and-after studies in Canada and Turkey found that bat populations within caves increased after restrictions on cave visitors were imposed. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): One study in the USA found that reducing the number of people within cave tour groups did not have a significant effect on the number of take-offs, landings or overall activity (bat movements) of a cave myotis colony roosting within the cave. One study in Madagascar found that increasing visitor approach distances, along with avoiding direct illumination of bats, reduced the alertness and number of take-offs of Madagascan rousettes during experimental cave tours. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1002Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:17:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Impose noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats We found no studies that evaluated the effects of imposing noise limits in proximity to bat roosts and habitats on bat populations. ‘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%2F1021https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1021Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:01:10 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Implement speed limits in particular areas (e.g. with high primate densities) to reduce vehicle collisions with primates We found no evidence for the effects of implementing speed limits in particular areas 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%2F1458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1458Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:30:20 +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: 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 sustainable harvesting of primates (e.g. with permits, resource access agreements) We found no evidence for the effects of implementing sustainable harvesting of 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%2F1468https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1468Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:27:39 +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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Increase semi-natural habitat within gardens We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the amount of semi-natural habitat within gardens on bat populations. ‘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%2F1933https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1933Fri, 30 Nov 2018 14:36:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape We found no studies that evaluated the effects of increasing the proportion of semi-natural habitat in the farmed landscape on bat populations. ‘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%2F1938https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1938Mon, 03 Dec 2018 13:18:19 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Increase the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) Twelve studies evaluated the effects of increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’) on bat populations. Ten studies were in the USA and two were in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Survival (12 studies): Ten of 12 studies (including 10 replicated, randomized, controlled studies and one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that increasing the wind speed at which turbines become operational (‘cut-in speed’), or increasing the cut-in speed along with preventing turbine blades from turning at low wind speeds (‘feathering’) resulted in fewer bat fatalities than at conventionally operated turbines. The other two studies found that increasing cut-in speeds did not reduce bat fatalities, but sample sizes were small or treatments were applied for short periods only. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1960Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:54:57 +0000